Speaker 1: Oh thats are.
Speaker 2: And welcome to the show.
Speaker 3: This is the Cult of Conspiracy and my name is Jonathan,
Speaker 3: I'm Jacob and today we bring back your boy Loup.
Speaker 3: What a do looke?
Speaker 4: Hello, It's good to be back.
Speaker 3: Good to be back hell, and it's going to be
Speaker 3: another fun conversation. We also want to welcome in Rose
Speaker 3: from the Crow Triple seven podcast. This is going to
Speaker 3: be a doozy.
Speaker 4: Indeed, I'm quite exit so much for having.
Speaker 3: Of course, Yes, Rose, you look Rose. I feel like
Speaker 3: you could. You could definitely reach out to us anytime
Speaker 3: you want. I just want to let you know that
Speaker 3: we love you. Know everything that you're doing over there
Speaker 3: with Crow and Jason and I could just just soak
Speaker 3: up all of that information like a sponge and the
Speaker 3: fact that you were involved in all of that. I
Speaker 3: love it.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. I will definitely take you up
Speaker 5: on that. But for today, I just want you guys
Speaker 5: to know that I am so excited about everything that
Speaker 5: Luke is doing and I'm here as a huge supporter
Speaker 5: and proponent and note taker of all this information. I
Speaker 5: just can't get enough of it. I'm super excited. And
Speaker 5: for anyone who doesn't think that they're a scientific minded.
Speaker 5: This just like with me, this might open the door
Speaker 5: for you to become interested in understanding the real fabric
Speaker 5: of our reality. Yeah.
Speaker 3: What I mean, what we're finding out is is that
Speaker 3: it's really not as complicated and complex as we thought.
Speaker 3: It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand you know,
Speaker 3: nature and physics and just science in general. Maybe it
Speaker 3: takes you know, a couple of hours of looking into
Speaker 3: it and trying to get a good grasp of it.
Speaker 3: But I feel like, you know, Looke, it's not like
Speaker 3: you got you know, a bachelor's degree in any kind
Speaker 3: of science or anything like that, right.
Speaker 4: Right exactly.
Speaker 6: I mean, I so I have a backing in science,
Speaker 6: but as far as the degree goes, no, But we
Speaker 6: also live in an age where you know, information is
Speaker 6: accessible at any time, all the time. And as far
Speaker 6: as the amount, it's a lot.
Speaker 7: Yeah, Professor YouTube has been on it for quite some time, honestly,
Speaker 7: and of it, I've told so many people, unless the
Speaker 7: career field you're trying to get into requires the piece
Speaker 7: of paper, most of the training and knowledge that you
Speaker 7: would need to either learn a certain trade or craft
Speaker 7: or any kind of real thing, like you could probably
Speaker 7: find in a YouTube tutorial, or there's enough professionals in
Speaker 7: the field with those credentials that are giving free seminars
Speaker 7: on YouTube or on TikTok or on any of these platforms.
Speaker 7: So you're absolutely right. We are one hundred percent in
Speaker 7: the age of information.
Speaker 3: Why do I feel like the stuff that Luke is
Speaker 3: going to be talking about today is not going to
Speaker 3: be able to be found on YouTube by mister psych
Speaker 3: science YouTube or whatever the hell's name was, oh, professor YouTube,
Speaker 3: professor YouTube. Yeah, I mean, well, Luke, maybe let's let's
Speaker 3: let's dip our feet in. Dude, where are we going?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 6: And it might be some things are going to possibly
Speaker 6: be called by other names, some forces are going to
Speaker 6: be a little bit abstract, or.
Speaker 4: I mean, like I said, we'll get into it.
Speaker 6: So basically, this is going to be an exploration through
Speaker 6: what is called I don't call it this, this is
Speaker 6: what they call it, but the particle zoo basically all
Speaker 6: of the either known or theoretical or some reclassified particles
Speaker 6: that as of right now, either classic classical particle theory
Speaker 6: has or quantum theory has. There are some differences between
Speaker 6: the two. There are some differences between how they view
Speaker 6: what's going on. So, I mean, we'll definitely be able
Speaker 6: to get into it. This will be it'll be definitely
Speaker 6: be helpful if you are able to visually see this,
Speaker 6: because we're gonna go through a lot of visual simulations
Speaker 6: to show exactly the motion, the actions, everything that I
Speaker 6: was talking about in the last episode that was extremely dry.
Speaker 6: You're gonna be able to visually se see and get
Speaker 6: a better grasp of exactly.
Speaker 4: What I'm talking about.
Speaker 2: All Right, I'm stoked.
Speaker 4: H Do you need access? Oh? I got access to share? Cool.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 7: And for anybody who would like to see the visual
Speaker 7: aids that Luke is going to be bringing to the
Speaker 7: table on this episode rather than just hear us.
Speaker 2: Talk about it, Jonathan, where can they go?
Speaker 3: Of course you already know, but if this is your
Speaker 3: first time listening to the Cult of Conspiracy podcast, we
Speaker 3: do want to let you know that this is this
Speaker 3: video is not available anywhere other than Patreon. YouTube has
Speaker 3: kicked us off several times. We're not messing with that algorithm.
Speaker 3: We're not going to be you know, walking on eggshells,
Speaker 3: and we're not going to be seeing on alive. If
Speaker 3: we want to talk about suicide, and all these stupid
Speaker 3: little things. We speak what's on our mind. We don't
Speaker 3: have a filter. And if you can get down with that,
Speaker 3: then Patreon dot com slash Cult of Conspiracy Podcasts is
Speaker 3: the place to be. And now, whenever you go over there,
Speaker 3: it's not just that you'll be able to see the
Speaker 3: video content, but you also have access to the shows
Speaker 3: multiple days in advance, sometimes even up to a week.
Speaker 3: You'll be able to slide into our dms over there.
Speaker 3: We answer those on a daily basis. You'll be able
Speaker 3: to join us every Tuesday night at nine pm Central
Speaker 3: for the Cult Member Live Show if you sign up
Speaker 3: for the Third Eye all the way open to here.
Speaker 3: But mainly why most people join over at Patreon, it
Speaker 3: is because it's the only place where you can find
Speaker 3: this content. Absolutely yeah, buddy, so get rid of them commercials.
Speaker 3: I know they're a nuisance. Patreon will help soothe those wounds.
Speaker 2: And again, the dms are wide open on Patreon.
Speaker 7: I am the one that answers those and I know
Speaker 7: this past week the Charlie Kirk episodes has gotten a
Speaker 7: couple of people pissed off at me. If you would
Speaker 7: like to slide into my dms and we can have
Speaker 7: an open and honest, calm discord, which is what Charlie
Speaker 7: lived and died for. The can come check us out
Speaker 7: on Patreon and come speak with me. I have all
Speaker 7: the time in the world for any of the good
Speaker 7: Patreon members.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I feel like most people are not convinced that
Speaker 3: you're not a fed Jacobs. So I think you need
Speaker 3: to have some kind of bounce back, to open up
Speaker 3: that third eye in some kind of way, to just
Speaker 3: let the good cult members know that you're back in it.
Speaker 7: O don't know, I never left it, but I understand
Speaker 7: why people who believe certain things would have issue with
Speaker 7: somebody who believes the opposite. I completely understand that.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 7: It's the same conversation with the flat Earth versus the
Speaker 7: globe Earth, and the people who are like, oh, you're
Speaker 7: a globe tard. I'm like, yeah, you're a fit. It's like, well,
Speaker 7: all right, that's that's one way to go about it.
Speaker 7: Or we can have an open, honest dialogue and maybe
Speaker 7: we can, you know, maybe come to an understanding.
Speaker 2: But I mean, some people get real in their fields,
Speaker 2: fine and their opinion.
Speaker 3: This is the last place you're ever going to find
Speaker 3: an echo chamber. Of anything. And I think that that
Speaker 3: was a perfect example of that. This is not going
Speaker 3: to be something where me and Jacob are just parrotying
Speaker 3: each other every single day. We have the same thoughts,
Speaker 3: we think the same things, you know what I mean,
Speaker 3: It's not like that. As a matter of fact, man,
Speaker 3: me and Jacob couldn't be like any any more different.
Speaker 3: But the show still runs, and that's what beautiful about it.
Speaker 3: I think.
Speaker 7: If you want that, go listen to Hassan Piker, right,
Speaker 7: go listen to Nick Fuintz if you just want to
Speaker 7: hear the same rhetoric over and over and over again
Speaker 7: and it happens to align with your shit. By all means,
Speaker 7: they're out there, they're pumping out the content. If you're
Speaker 7: wanting to hear things that might make you question your
Speaker 7: reality on either side of the fence, this is the
Speaker 7: place where you come.
Speaker 2: This is what this is for.
Speaker 3: But anyway, yeah, maybe all right, Luke, what are we
Speaker 3: looking at here?
Speaker 4: Sir? All right?
Speaker 6: So, for anybody that remembers from the last episode or
Speaker 6: that may not have heard that, we're gonna be talking
Speaker 6: about some variables introduced to my theory that aren't typically
Speaker 6: used or like they may be a little bit new,
Speaker 6: so I'm not gonna go over the full characteristics of
Speaker 6: each variable, but basically we have emission, pressure, coherence, torsion, dispersion.
Speaker 6: Those four mainly what we're gonna be talking about here
Speaker 6: and how they basically relate and cause almost everything that
Speaker 6: you see in existence in general, from quantum all the
Speaker 6: way to the extreme macro. But we're just gonna go
Speaker 6: through the like I said, the particle zoo to explain
Speaker 6: at least the micro in detail. So maybe when you're
Speaker 6: looking at the macro you can identify this stuff yourself.
Speaker 3: Okay. You know what's funny too, is that you say
Speaker 3: that because I just got done watching a series. It's
Speaker 3: on HBO, but it's called His Dark Materials. Dude, that
Speaker 3: show slaps Shout out to Electro Nick for the suggestion,
Speaker 3: But dude, it's like they come in contact with like
Speaker 3: these They call it dust, but it's basically like God particles,
Speaker 3: and that's what makes everybody and everything special and spiritual
Speaker 3: and magical and it's fucking awesome. Anyway, Just want to
Speaker 3: throw that out there. If people like that kind of stuff.
Speaker 3: I'm into that, you know, kind of like fantasy, spiritual
Speaker 3: most kind of stuff. Dude, great show. I don't know
Speaker 3: if that has anything to do with what you're talking about,
Speaker 3: but it's going to be sick.
Speaker 6: I wouldn't I wouldn't say so, I would say that
Speaker 6: made that might be a little bit more on the uh,
Speaker 6: on the fantasy side of it.
Speaker 3: Very well.
Speaker 4: But so we'll start off.
Speaker 6: With one of the very beginning interactions that happens.
Speaker 4: So pressure waves themselves.
Speaker 6: So as you can see here in the simulation, we've
Speaker 6: got three dots right that all send out a what
Speaker 6: looks like a basically a wave right or basically a wavefront.
Speaker 2: Now what is making them send this out? You say
Speaker 2: it was pressure?
Speaker 7: Are they just emitting this naturally or is there something
Speaker 7: that caused it?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 6: Basically energy build up through compression that's not shown here,
Speaker 6: and we will get to that. But basically this is
Speaker 6: one of the precursor events to particle formation to all
Speaker 6: of that. Where the first event, which what they call
Speaker 6: you know, inflation in the Big Bang, I would call
Speaker 6: it the original pulse. Okay, So they continue to extend
Speaker 6: out until they meet. Once they meet, they can end
Speaker 6: up creating a basically an opposite wave because of them
Speaker 6: coming into contact with each other.
Speaker 7: Like the waves hit each other and bounce like basically
Speaker 7: reflect each other off each other.
Speaker 6: Basically yeah, yeah, depending on what's going on with the waves,
Speaker 6: depends on whether they'll do that or not. But one
Speaker 6: of the best ways to show this is it's currently
Speaker 6: the way we measure EM waves, right using this standard
Speaker 6: wave formation, cress and troughs, all of the EM spectrum,
Speaker 6: all of that, right, that is basically a you could
Speaker 6: either say a one or two D representation of waveform
Speaker 6: or measurement which we use you know, hurts to measure
Speaker 6: the frequency of it.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: The way that actually, the way I'm saying that actually
Speaker 6: works is your base. Imagine setting off an explosion, right,
Speaker 6: and you have one sensor beside it, and it measures
Speaker 6: that explosion. What I'm talking about and what Tesla was
Speaker 6: doing is in his experiments were three or possibly four
Speaker 6: dimensional waves, which I'm saying, they're pressure waves.
Speaker 4: So they're not.
Speaker 6: One dimensional going in a straight line anything like that.
Speaker 6: These are radial and multidirectional and their three dimensional. That's
Speaker 6: why when Tesla was doing his experiments, he used a
Speaker 6: array of sensors and not just one. So that's actually
Speaker 6: what you're seeing here is a one dimensional or two
Speaker 6: dimensional wave being represented in a three dimensional way to
Speaker 6: where it's a basically an expanding sphere.
Speaker 3: Oh interesting, dude. I did a little bit of research
Speaker 3: here recently on like what would what would happen if
Speaker 3: we were fourth dimensional entities? Just hypothetically, right, Like what
Speaker 3: else is included in that? Obviously there's this reality, but
Speaker 3: what more? Right? And so the fourth dimension, from what
Speaker 3: I learned, is that it encompasses time. So, yes, we
Speaker 3: have time while we're here and everything. But the way
Speaker 3: that you would interact with time if you were living
Speaker 3: in the fourth dimension is you would see time as
Speaker 3: like one straight line. You wouldn't have to go through
Speaker 3: the motions of having to experience time as it's happening.
Speaker 3: You would experience time as if you were you know
Speaker 3: how you can like look at a book and you
Speaker 3: can read it start to finish like almost, I mean,
Speaker 3: depending on how fast you read it or whatever, you
Speaker 3: can almost read it start to finish. It doesn't take
Speaker 3: an entire lifetime to look at And so in the
Speaker 3: fourth dimension, that's how you would interact with time, which
Speaker 3: I think is pretty interesting.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: Basically at the point of you beginning to read it,
Speaker 6: you have already finished.
Speaker 3: Exactly the moment you started. It would be the moment
Speaker 3: that you finished it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, right, And I in my theory, honestly, I would say,
Speaker 6: like I get that some of the terminology for all
Speaker 6: of this stuff is new. It's a little bit difficult
Speaker 6: to understand. That's why I'm happy I've made the visuals.
Speaker 6: But if I'm gonna be honest, one of the hardest
Speaker 6: things to understanding the theory is the explanation of time,
Speaker 6: what it is, how it's experienced, and how it exactly
Speaker 6: it works. That could be an entire episode on its own.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, dude, Time is a crazy thing to think about, Like,
Speaker 3: you know, and they say that with the Big Bang,
Speaker 3: literally time itself was created. Like my mind has a
Speaker 3: hard time even fathoming what the hell that means, you
Speaker 3: know what I'm saying, Like, it's just it's such a
Speaker 3: trip to even think about that kind of stuff.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely, I could see that and all.
Speaker 6: Honestly, the one thing I would say that's majorly different
Speaker 6: between what they view as the Big Bang and what
Speaker 6: I I would is it wasn't as chaotic and destructive
Speaker 6: as to what you could view the Big Bang as
Speaker 6: it was very controlled, very directed.
Speaker 4: I guess you could say.
Speaker 3: Okay, which would make sense if it's a creation rather
Speaker 3: than just a chaotic moment and chaotic blip outside of time.
Speaker 4: Exactly did it create time? Yes?
Speaker 6: And as we go through this and you can visually
Speaker 6: see how each force works and all of that, it'll
Speaker 6: help with the explanation of how basically that that original
Speaker 6: pulse actually started was created, what it carried, how it
Speaker 6: basically transformed into everything that you see now.
Speaker 2: I like how you're calling it.
Speaker 7: I forget if you've said the big pulse or the
Speaker 7: initial pulse, or however this origin pulse, origin pulse. Excuse me,
Speaker 7: I like that honestly, right, it's to put it onto
Speaker 7: a three dimensional I guess, in this case, a two
Speaker 7: dimensional thing that we could kind of replicate and see
Speaker 7: with our own eyes. It's the same concept of dropping
Speaker 7: a rock into a pool of water, right, and then
Speaker 7: you could see how the ripples go outward from that.
Speaker 7: The Big Bang, I mean that might be a bit
Speaker 7: of a misnomer, like I don't know if there was
Speaker 7: actually an explosion or not, right, nobody does. That's why
Speaker 7: it's still a Big Bang theory and all that, but
Speaker 7: it would also stand a reason that it would go
Speaker 7: out all in the in all all directions, in a
Speaker 7: whole three hundred and sixty degree all directions at the
Speaker 7: same time and at the same rate from a starting point.
Speaker 7: So I like how you're kind of putting it into
Speaker 7: those terms. And then also with this example of the
Speaker 7: three particles that are all sending out that pressure pulse
Speaker 7: like that, now I like that. You also said that
Speaker 7: there's there is a possibility that the waves bounce off
Speaker 7: of each other, but that's not a guarantee.
Speaker 2: Right the same way, if you were to drop two.
Speaker 7: Into water at the exact same time from the exact
Speaker 7: same height, you'll get two separate ripple effects that will happen. However,
Speaker 7: they don't meet and then stop each other. They kind
Speaker 7: of interweave through each other. But it also there's nuances, Right,
Speaker 7: was this object the same as that object, was it
Speaker 7: dropped from the same height, was all the conditions perfectly exact,
Speaker 7: So there's there's possibilities that can take place in that,
Speaker 7: But then there's also room for that X factor.
Speaker 3: It's like a guitar interacting with a piano, Like the
Speaker 3: same sound waves given off and they can interact with
Speaker 3: each other in that way, right.
Speaker 6: Yeah, basically, so that the next part that we get
Speaker 6: to is going like using your same example of the
Speaker 6: ripples in the water, is what happens when those two
Speaker 6: rocks are dropped at different times and a basically a
Speaker 6: trough might meet a crest from another ripple.
Speaker 4: Fair enough, so again.
Speaker 6: We got them just so these are basically the best
Speaker 6: example of the pressure waves. So for the next part
Speaker 6: we get to what I call the knot. So you
Speaker 6: can call it a scale or kno, you can call
Speaker 6: it a just a not. In general, what this is
Speaker 6: itself is when those pressure waves meet in a asymmetric
Speaker 6: manner right basically off angle, they create a knot and
Speaker 6: it is just three different rotations that were created by
Speaker 6: those pressure waves that create what literally exactly what you're
Speaker 6: seeing right here.
Speaker 7: Does it ever go all the way through and like
Speaker 7: complete a sphere or does it stay in a donut
Speaker 7: type shape?
Speaker 6: If it creates a sphere, it is not going to
Speaker 6: pretty much be able to form into anything.
Speaker 4: So you can have.
Speaker 6: You can have two that interact with each other and
Speaker 6: they can create two directions. Most of the time they
Speaker 6: won't have enough actual torsion within them to either sustain anything,
Speaker 6: to pull anything in. They may not have enough resistance
Speaker 6: from other knots that are around them to continue surviving. Basically,
Speaker 6: this is one of those situations to where the survival
Speaker 6: of the fittest continues because there are multiple of these,
Speaker 6: you know, being created from these pressure waves. If any
Speaker 6: of them are too strong, they may end up actually
Speaker 6: even ripping each other apart. So what you're seeing exactly
Speaker 6: right here is a representation of one of the variables
Speaker 6: I have, which is torsion.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 7: So again to try to put it to an example
Speaker 7: that maybe people can like resonate with, is this essentially
Speaker 7: like a vorticy?
Speaker 2: Yes, okay, all right, And for anybody who may not.
Speaker 7: Know exactly what that is, if you uh think about
Speaker 7: it in uh you run a bathtub and you pull
Speaker 7: the plug right, and you have that spiral that's going
Speaker 7: down to the drain, right, that is a vortice. And
Speaker 7: you can see this in water whenever you're I mean, hell,
Speaker 7: half the time, whenever you're watching a body of water move,
Speaker 7: you'll watch random little spirals kind of form themselves and
Speaker 7: then dissipate it out. And there's maybe there was a
Speaker 7: fish underneath it that like whipped its tail or something
Speaker 7: and made that vortice happen. Maybe there's a million different
Speaker 7: things that can cause this, but that is because of
Speaker 7: like he's talking about a pressure differential, right, And in industry,
Speaker 7: we use we use actual instrumentation that creates vortices that
Speaker 7: we can then pick up onto tel flow, right. And
Speaker 7: I mean there's a lot of nuances that go into it,
Speaker 7: like how thick or thin viscous the material is, and
Speaker 7: what types of order vortices will be made by it.
Speaker 7: And it's just there's a lot of nuance that goes
Speaker 7: into it and a lot of calibration would is what
Speaker 7: I used to do for work. But essentially what you're
Speaker 7: saying is if you were to take the vortice that
Speaker 7: we're watching, the swirling of the water, so to speak,
Speaker 7: and put that to an atomic level, this is what
Speaker 7: they are on atomic level.
Speaker 4: Sagan below an atomic level, so what below that?
Speaker 6: So what you're seeing right now is one it is
Speaker 6: the structure that Maxwell originally laid out for the quarter neons, right,
Speaker 6: Because remember they are three rotational aspects with one scalar aspect,
Speaker 6: which would be the energy aspect of it right. So
Speaker 6: this is actually the three directional rotation that is encoded
Speaker 6: within the equation for the quarter neon that was later
Speaker 6: reduced and vectorized.
Speaker 2: Vectorized.
Speaker 6: This is a almost one for one for what they
Speaker 6: currently call virtual particles. And when you get a whole
Speaker 6: mass or a whole mess of these together, you get
Speaker 6: basically what they call quantum foam, which is where particles
Speaker 6: are popping in and out of existence.
Speaker 4: Virtual particles are used.
Speaker 6: To show the basically the creation of these particles or
Speaker 6: the attraction of these particles or like mass to them
Speaker 6: to actually pop them into existence, so to speak. They
Speaker 6: say that the virtual particle itself is not an actual structure.
Speaker 6: It's just a representation of the actions going on. Because
Speaker 6: remember again from the last episode, Maxwell's work was basically
Speaker 6: divided up amongst the three giants of science. So Quantum
Speaker 6: did not get the structure part of his equations. They
Speaker 6: got the energy part of his equations. That's why they
Speaker 6: can't really state it as an actual structure itself.
Speaker 4: While it is and it has torsion. Right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Look, for anybody that is just listening, I just
Speaker 3: want to say that, Yeah, we mentioned Patreon earlier. If
Speaker 3: you go over and sign up for Patreon. You actually
Speaker 3: get a one week free trial, So if you want
Speaker 3: to go and check that out, you can watch it
Speaker 3: for free for an entire week. If you like it,
Speaker 3: stick around. If you don't, all right back to listening,
Speaker 3: that's totally fine. Just want to throw that out there
Speaker 3: for all the good cult members.
Speaker 7: Yeah, but you're definitely want to going to see what
Speaker 7: the hell he's talking about, because the the image does
Speaker 7: a whole lot more to explain this. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 7: we're doing the best we can to describing it, and
Speaker 7: we're doing I think a pretty decent job. But at
Speaker 7: the same time, seeing this graphic in front of you
Speaker 7: as we're having this conversation, it's it really brings it
Speaker 7: into focus.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it looks like a double ended woven basket.
Speaker 6: It's kind of right if I just say, you know
Speaker 6: something that has three rotational aspects, what does that look like?
Speaker 6: It's it's kind of hard to describe what that looks like.
Speaker 6: And that's part of the issue that Maxwell had. The
Speaker 6: reason why it was you know, eventually vectorized was because
Speaker 6: of you know, necessity of the times, and also it
Speaker 6: is just it's hard to visually explain something in that
Speaker 6: way comparative to how we can do it today with
Speaker 6: something like this.
Speaker 2: Right right now, you're saying that this will eventually like
Speaker 2: fizzle out.
Speaker 7: No, okay, you said that two of these three can
Speaker 7: hit each other and that might cause it to like
Speaker 7: dissipate because it won't have the energy to continue the rotations,
Speaker 7: and so it makes quantum foam where these particles are
Speaker 7: popping into and out of existence because of things like that.
Speaker 7: But if left to its own devices and they don't
Speaker 7: hit each other, this will just continue in.
Speaker 2: This will just be it will exist.
Speaker 6: Right, yes, So basically as it's you know, continuing its
Speaker 6: turns and all that stuff, it is for the most
Speaker 6: part trying its best to collect energy during that time
Speaker 6: because the three rotational aspects creates like what you said
Speaker 6: with the vortices, it creates a vacuum effect. So as
Speaker 6: far as vacuum fluctuations go, it's because of this.
Speaker 7: I was gonna ask you what type of energy is
Speaker 7: it trying to collect? But if we're talking about using
Speaker 7: like pressure difference in a vacuum in these things, this
Speaker 7: would this is not electrical energy. This would be kinetic,
Speaker 7: would it not.
Speaker 6: It would be basically the smallest and most simplest forms
Speaker 6: of energy.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 7: It's it's not electric, and it's yes, I guess vibrational
Speaker 7: by definition.
Speaker 6: But it's not electric yet, but it is just you
Speaker 6: could say it's base energy.
Speaker 4: I guess you could say base.
Speaker 2: Energy right now. That's a fascinating concept.
Speaker 6: Whatever the original or smallest versions of energy looks like.
Speaker 6: I mean, as of right now, I think our best
Speaker 6: bet is just saying vibration. I don't know if we'll
Speaker 6: ever get to a point to where, you know, we
Speaker 6: can basically see energy at like level one.
Speaker 3: So it's basically like in its potential form right now,
Speaker 3: is what you're saying.
Speaker 5: Kind of, may I test my comprehension of this, Luke
Speaker 5: by trying to explain it. Okay, so you saw the
Speaker 5: three little dots, So that's like the smallest of the
Speaker 5: smallest that are emitting. They're emitting this pressure and then
Speaker 5: they're hitting each other at this these asymmetrical angles. So
Speaker 5: if those asymmetrical angles are hitting the spot in a
Speaker 5: specific way, then this torsional result will happen and what
Speaker 5: is called a scale er not what you're seeing here,
Speaker 5: will begin to form because of the original conditions which
Speaker 5: allowed it with those special angles. And so now that
Speaker 5: the scaler knot is forming, it's coming like into a
Speaker 5: existence to the point where soon he's going to start
Speaker 5: explaining how it becomes an electromagnetic aspect of reality that
Speaker 5: then we will be on the periodic table of elements.
Speaker 5: Can you grade me on that, Luke?
Speaker 4: Like, is that anything? That was good? Okay? Cool? Yeah,
Speaker 4: that was good.
Speaker 6: It doesn't I would say, it doesn't necessarily have to
Speaker 6: be a small like small pressure waves interacting with each other.
Speaker 6: This can be created basically by any pressure waves meeting
Speaker 6: in an asymmetrical spot. So I mean you could have
Speaker 6: something created like this that's extremely large, and there's a
Speaker 6: good possibility that maybe that's some black holes that we
Speaker 6: observe because they are going to.
Speaker 4: Be these at its base.
Speaker 6: This is literally what we view as just vacuum as
Speaker 6: a whole.
Speaker 7: So this is when you say, like these are being
Speaker 7: created and like Rose said, these three particles, they well
Speaker 7: she said that they are hit, right, Is that a
Speaker 7: fair thing to say?
Speaker 6: Or is it where it's where the pressure waves, like
Speaker 6: where the wavefront hit asymmetrically, so it starts a spin. Okay,
Speaker 6: Basically imagine like three actual balls hitting each other, and
Speaker 6: as they all hit each other at an angle, they
Speaker 6: create a spin in the middle.
Speaker 5: So if you're looking at the red, the blue, and
Speaker 5: the green lines those movements that those are the three
Speaker 5: torsional aspects that began because of the way those emitted
Speaker 5: waves were hitting each other. So the asymmetrical hitting and
Speaker 5: rebounds happened, and then boom, You've got these torsional aspects
Speaker 5: that have begun, and that's and the way that they
Speaker 5: hit each other is going to dictate whether it continues
Speaker 5: into something that can form or just fall apart.
Speaker 7: So now I have another there's a hypothetical on a
Speaker 7: hypothetical anybody.
Speaker 2: Who's familiar with the game of pool or billiards.
Speaker 7: So essentially what we are saying is that you have
Speaker 7: a du with a pool queue that is hitting three
Speaker 7: Q balls dead center, and in retrospect, he's putting English
Speaker 7: on all three of them at the exact same time,
Speaker 7: but they are not actually on a table that's being
Speaker 7: affected by gravity and friction.
Speaker 2: So essentially, in the.
Speaker 7: Gravity lists ether, just for this example, you're putting English
Speaker 7: on three separate pool cues at the exact same time,
Speaker 7: which turns them into they start spinning not against each
Speaker 7: other but independently but also connected to each other.
Speaker 6: So you don't have to put english on it. Because
Speaker 6: they're hitting off angle, it naturally supplies the rotation.
Speaker 2: Interesting, okay, Okay.
Speaker 6: So, like I said, this is basically the view of
Speaker 6: what a vacuum actually is. So this will start pulling
Speaker 6: in energy right once it has accumulated enough energy, it
Speaker 6: now starts its first emission, right, which is what we
Speaker 6: saw before this. These are going to be just basically
Speaker 6: quarks right now, These nots themselves typically, and there's a
Speaker 6: lot of evidence to show this all the way up
Speaker 6: to the micro but for some reason encoded in existence,
Speaker 6: there is a favoritism towards a right handed spin.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: We see we see it across you know, galaxies all
Speaker 6: across the universe, whether there's all kinds of yeah, right,
Speaker 6: so there is a favoritism towards right handed spin. So
Speaker 6: these are going to be basically standard direction spins. Now
Speaker 6: they can occur in a left handed spin, and this
Speaker 6: is where you get for example, anti quarks or antimatter
Speaker 6: or basically any anti of whatever particle. So they can
Speaker 6: spin in opposite directions.
Speaker 7: Now, when a left handed or a left spinning knot
Speaker 7: comes in contact with a right spinning knot, is this cataclysmic?
Speaker 7: Do they cancel each other out and they both cease
Speaker 7: to exist? How does that go?
Speaker 4: So?
Speaker 6: Because existence favors a right handed spin, typically right handed
Speaker 6: or standard quarts, they can exist for a decent amount
Speaker 6: of time comparative to anti quarks. Anti quarks can pair
Speaker 6: with regular quarks and make a basically a particle that
Speaker 6: we'll talk about in one of the next stages. But
Speaker 6: they can pair together through a basically a torsion differential
Speaker 6: to where they cancel each other out and the vacuum
Speaker 6: versus emission effects equalize, and they basically bond.
Speaker 4: They don't bond, but they attach.
Speaker 7: Right the same conversation, if you had a tank or
Speaker 7: a vessel that's under vacuum, and you had a tank
Speaker 7: or a vessel that's pressurized, and they were connected with
Speaker 7: a pipe and you open the valve, they're just gonna.
Speaker 4: Level off kind of yeah.
Speaker 7: Yeah, And well, I say, if they're equal right, right, right,
Speaker 7: If this isn't pressurize a three hundred ps i and
Speaker 7: this is pulling a vacuum of negative two ps i,
Speaker 7: like it's gotta be equal. But if they are equal
Speaker 7: and you open it up, you're not gonna have an explosion.
Speaker 2: If anything is just gonna level off.
Speaker 7: So I guess there's a lot of nuances to what
Speaker 7: makes it do one thing versus the other.
Speaker 4: Yeah, but that could be.
Speaker 6: That's definitely an example to you know, I guess, give
Speaker 6: somebody a visual effect that they may be familiar with.
Speaker 6: So it it's not one hundred percent, but it it
Speaker 6: shows the same type of effect.
Speaker 4: I guess you could say, okay, okay.
Speaker 6: So once they pull in enough energy and they become
Speaker 6: quarks and they are in blockwise direction, we get some
Speaker 6: very interesting things that start going on. So the not
Speaker 6: itself continues to constrict, right, because it works like a
Speaker 6: standard knot. It works like a standard vortex to where
Speaker 6: it continues pulling in, pulling in and compressing. Well, eventually
Speaker 6: the energy that is pulled inside of it, it doesn't
Speaker 6: like that anymore, so it just naturally expands it. I'm
Speaker 6: not gonna say it canbusts, but it is a similar
Speaker 6: type effect to where the energy has compressed enough to
Speaker 6: where it expands out. This is what initiates the pressure
Speaker 6: waves that we saw previously to what created this. So
Speaker 6: there's the amount of these being created at any time
Speaker 6: in the areas that they can still be created at.
Speaker 6: I mean, I don't know if there'd ever be a
Speaker 6: number there there, you know, either, there's basically got to
Speaker 6: be a sweet spot for the values to be able
Speaker 6: to collect enough energy without tearing themselves apart, without not
Speaker 6: pulling in enough energy. It is I guess you could
Speaker 6: say a Goldie life of amount, right, kind of like
Speaker 6: a Goldilocks zone of it.
Speaker 2: Mm.
Speaker 6: So, once energy is compressed and then it emits and
Speaker 6: it does the original basically its first uh pressure wave.
Speaker 6: What happens is that pressure wave goes out to an
Speaker 6: ex certain certain extent, and it is dependent on the
Speaker 6: amount of energy it had to begin with. Once it
Speaker 6: reaches that outer bound, torsion takes over again. Once torsion
Speaker 6: basically overpowers the original pressure, it begins and the energy
Speaker 6: actually will curl back into it. And this is where
Speaker 6: we get the very first magnetic curl. Because magnetic curl
Speaker 6: typically comes from that curl of energy itself. These would
Speaker 6: be you know, basically the smallest magnetic fields that probably exist.
Speaker 6: They're going to be very weak relig to the size
Speaker 6: that we are, but to the size that way they are,
Speaker 6: they're going to be pretty strong. That's why, you know,
Speaker 6: particles hold themselves to each other very very strongly, where
Speaker 6: we'd later on get you know, the strong and weak
Speaker 6: nuclear force and all that. But once the curl initiates
Speaker 6: and the energy starts going back towards the knot, because
Speaker 6: the knot expanded, the energy expanded, the knot has the
Speaker 6: torsion is now taken over again and it's pulling everything
Speaker 6: back in. That is part of the one of the
Speaker 6: ways for rebound to start working. Which this is another
Speaker 6: visual to give kind of a little bit of an explanation.
Speaker 6: So you can see, like the energy coming back in
Speaker 6: this torsion isn't as obviously isn't as good as the
Speaker 6: other one, but you can see the energy collection and
Speaker 6: then the particle itself basically starts pulsing.
Speaker 7: Right, So this is the same image were essentially the
Speaker 7: same image we were looking at earlier with the three
Speaker 7: particles and the spiral and all that.
Speaker 2: This is a smaller version of the correct right.
Speaker 6: This is kind of like all of it pulled together
Speaker 6: for the most part to where you have the pressure
Speaker 6: waves meeting portion is created, energy is collected. It basically
Speaker 6: at that point no longer becomes or is no longer
Speaker 6: just a vacuum or a vortex. It actually has energy
Speaker 6: to it that it is pulsing. So realistically, if the
Speaker 6: emission waves that go out go out far enough and
Speaker 6: can interact with other things, they themselves can create extra knots.
Speaker 6: But depending on the available energy that's around it, it
Speaker 6: may just stay as a vacuum fluctuation.
Speaker 5: Right, Luke, you're talking about this relationship between the collection
Speaker 5: of energy which causes expansion and then and that naturally
Speaker 5: flips over to the torsion at the center. Are you
Speaker 5: framing this up to explain that relationship and how it
Speaker 5: can be a metaphor for breathing with that expanding and contracting.
Speaker 6: Yes, we will be getting to that because I can
Speaker 6: tell you a lot of the people that have related
Speaker 6: this towards a breathing effect is for the most part.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: So, those four values that we talked about, they basically
Speaker 6: determine everything that is going to continue going on. They
Speaker 6: determine the life extent of the particle. They determine what
Speaker 6: kind of interactions it'll be able to have, what kind
Speaker 6: of interactions, it'll be able to be unaffected by basically
Speaker 6: each and every stage later on is determined all by
Speaker 6: these values that are given to it. So we have
Speaker 6: instant physics. We have two classifications that start here. We
Speaker 6: have bosons and we have fermions. So bosons what they
Speaker 6: are are basically emission, the curl, and the rebound are
Speaker 6: all equal, and they have relatively low torsion. What this
Speaker 6: does is it means it's very compact and it's very small.
Speaker 4: It's very.
Speaker 6: Dense and energy for its small size that it has,
Speaker 6: so it's able to slip in and out of things.
Speaker 6: It's able to go through things without interacting with each other.
Speaker 6: For example, a photon is a boson. They're able to,
Speaker 6: you know, travel through all of this different stuff that
Speaker 6: would normally not allow a standard particle to interact with
Speaker 6: without actual field interactions, and these bosons can do it
Speaker 6: without having any actual interaction because they're very equal on
Speaker 6: the emission that they put out and the rebound they receive.
Speaker 6: As far as fermions go, this is where we basically
Speaker 6: get the rest of the particles. So they can either
Speaker 6: be very high in emission, so the pressure wave that
Speaker 6: they send out is stronger than the torsion that they have,
Speaker 6: so they release more energy than they receive.
Speaker 4: These are called up quarks.
Speaker 6: If it receives more energy than what it is actually
Speaker 6: putting out, they're called down quarks. And these come together
Speaker 6: to create you know, a proton which has two up
Speaker 6: quarks and one down cork, or a neutron which has
Speaker 6: two down quarks and one up cork. It's called So
Speaker 6: the reason why these actually have to have field interactions
Speaker 6: whenever they're getting towards other particles that you know, are
Speaker 6: much larger. They're not as condensed as boson is because
Speaker 6: of polysc polyne or polyne exclusion rules, basically saying that
Speaker 6: no overlapping shells, which we'll get into Schrodinger's harmonic shells
Speaker 6: or his probability shells, but none of them can exist
Speaker 6: in the same area at the same time without having
Speaker 6: those interactions. That is because they're much further out as
Speaker 6: far as the areas that we're talking about. They're not
Speaker 6: as condensed as the bosons are, which can basically slip
Speaker 6: in and out of things.
Speaker 3: Okay, Luke, I feel like we're starting I mean, obviously
Speaker 3: we're starting at like the extreme micro level, and I
Speaker 3: feel like you're trying to work your way all the
Speaker 3: way up, and you know we're just gonna be zooming
Speaker 3: out and zooming out, zoom out of a little bit more.
Speaker 3: What is like the main overview, so that you know,
Speaker 3: my slow brain can have some sort of reference as
Speaker 3: to what you're trying to allude with all this.
Speaker 6: So there is a common thing set amongst individuals to
Speaker 6: where everything is a nested toroid within a nested toroid
Speaker 6: within a neested toroid, and this continues. I'm showing you
Speaker 6: that that's absolutely without a doubt true. It's just that
Speaker 6: there's a little little aspect, a little here and there
Speaker 6: that's missing from that to completely show why that is
Speaker 6: and how it's correct all the way.
Speaker 3: So a nested toroid within a nested toroid almost like
Speaker 3: the Russian dolls kind of thing. Yes, So in that sense,
Speaker 3: are you are you trying to is this looking at
Speaker 3: it from like a dimensional aspect?
Speaker 6: I guess it depends on what you define as dimensional,
Speaker 6: So I mean, if we're talking about one or two
Speaker 6: D dimensional or three or four, it's not really in
Speaker 6: that aspect.
Speaker 4: This is more of just size wise.
Speaker 6: So we the original knot that you saw was basically
Speaker 6: the smallest form of structure in existence, and it continues
Speaker 6: to build and build and build until eventually it gets
Speaker 6: to the cellular level. It gets to the level of us,
Speaker 6: gets to the level of planets, galaxies, whatever, and it's
Speaker 6: all ruled by the same basical values that allow it
Speaker 6: to interact with other things.
Speaker 3: Right, So we like every single thing in physical reality
Speaker 3: is made up of these tiny little things, right, You're
Speaker 3: just zooming in on the micro and then it eventually
Speaker 3: blows up into the everything else.
Speaker 4: Yes, gotcha.
Speaker 2: Well, so just it's kind of a caveat question off
Speaker 2: of that.
Speaker 7: So you brought up, for instance, fermions, right, technically speaking, electrons, neutrons,
Speaker 7: and protons would all be in that classification. Correct me
Speaker 7: if I'm wrong, because I'm not one hundred percent. What
Speaker 7: you're describing is basically, like you said, this is the
Speaker 7: foundations of what gives something energy. Right, So the main
Speaker 7: difference between the three things that is listed is there
Speaker 7: positive or negative charge, which is a type of energy.
Speaker 6: You are saying charge is not energy electrical charge. Correct,
Speaker 6: charge is a basically a flow that we have given energy.
Speaker 6: So if something is positively charged, it's not actually dictating
Speaker 6: its charge. It's showing that it is giving more energy
Speaker 6: than it is receiving. If something is negatively charged, that
Speaker 6: still doesn't necessarily mean anything. It is just receiving more
Speaker 6: energy than it is putting out.
Speaker 7: So you're right, okay, okay, But what you're saying is
Speaker 7: that this on screen right now is essentially the component
Speaker 7: that gives that quark its energy. It's charge, it's classification,
Speaker 7: whether it falls into electron, neutron, or proton.
Speaker 6: Correct, the knot itself is what causes the collection of energy,
Speaker 6: and depending on what values follow, So if it collected
Speaker 6: a lot of energy, it is going to have obviously
Speaker 6: more emission than it will have rebound and curl, right,
Speaker 6: So that is going to be a upquark. It is
Speaker 6: going to have more. It's going to give more than
Speaker 6: it's able to receive. If it didn't collect a lot,
Speaker 6: then obviously it is going to have a negative charge,
Speaker 6: so it's going to pull in more than it is
Speaker 6: giving out. It's all based off of those same four
Speaker 6: values which dictate exactly what classification is going to be
Speaker 6: and how it's going to interact with everything else.
Speaker 2: Right, And that's what I'm saying these knots are what.
Speaker 7: Dictate that per the particle itself.
Speaker 4: They're one of the values. They're one of the main values.
Speaker 6: I guess you could say so though nots themselves are
Speaker 6: just portion, so they're just spin. They I would say,
Speaker 6: they don't necessarily have a structure. But at the same time,
Speaker 6: obviously they have a spin, So there is a structure
Speaker 6: that is there, it's just we can't necessarily see it
Speaker 6: with current technology as of right now. So there's a
Speaker 6: very good chance that by the like, if I am correct,
Speaker 6: which to be honest, with the benchmarks I've been able
Speaker 6: to hit, it's pretty difficult to say that I'm at
Speaker 6: least not able to replace quantum in a hyperdeterministic way.
Speaker 6: There's a very good possibility that I will be long
Speaker 6: gone by the time this is able to actually be proven. Basically,
Speaker 6: the same thing is like what we talked about with
Speaker 6: now quantum is able to realistically been be proven to
Speaker 6: an extent because technology is finally caught up to it.
Speaker 7: Right, Okay, so basically is an electron it's spin around
Speaker 7: the nucleus.
Speaker 2: That's not what you're saying.
Speaker 6: Portion is, yes, So the interactions electrons can be created
Speaker 6: through a few different methods. We have found protons that
Speaker 6: are actually missing a down quark to where they're overly positive,
Speaker 6: and as it turns out, it was because it lost
Speaker 6: that quark and for the most part, became an electron.
Speaker 7: But that doesn't is it something that happens naturally or something.
Speaker 4: Now that does not hapens.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it happened because of something, but it does not
Speaker 6: happen naturally. Typically based off of other interactions. Once quarks
Speaker 6: actually pair together, uh, they're able to create a for
Speaker 6: the most part or not on the outside that is
Speaker 6: pulling in energy.
Speaker 4: And that's what we view as an electron.
Speaker 6: That depends on the state of what's going on, which
Speaker 6: would be coherence, because that would be determined whether this
Speaker 6: structure itself is in a quantum state or if it
Speaker 6: is in a classical state. And it all depends on
Speaker 6: the actual structure if it is you know, basically confined
Speaker 6: to its particle form quote unquote, or it is what
Speaker 6: I call expanded into its quantum form, because.
Speaker 2: What makes it determine whether it's going to go to
Speaker 2: one form versus the.
Speaker 6: Other the interactions that are around it. Okay, for the
Speaker 6: most part, we get into the wave particle duality part
Speaker 6: of it to where I'm saying, instead of a particle
Speaker 6: collapse or like a quantum particle collapsing to its classical
Speaker 6: form and then it's just in the regular form that
Speaker 6: we always view it at, I'm saying that depending on
Speaker 6: the environment. So for example, in open space, where these
Speaker 6: fluctuations are happening, there's not as much you know, interactions
Speaker 6: around it to really keep that compressed energy in a
Speaker 6: particle like state. So particles themselves are literally just compressed waveforms.
Speaker 2: Gotcha.
Speaker 6: And we will actually get into how the whole energy
Speaker 6: versus sound actually correlates, and that's probably one of my favorite,
Speaker 6: like actual visual simulations to show because it gets kind
Speaker 6: of crazy.
Speaker 5: Okay, really quickly, I just want to test my comprehension
Speaker 5: again and see if maybe it's helpful. In the beginning,
Speaker 5: you mentioned emission, pressure, torsion, and dispersion, So in my mind,
Speaker 5: those are the conditions and the variables necessary that something
Speaker 5: needs to quote unquote pop into existence. So the way
Speaker 5: that quantum is described now is that things randomly pop
Speaker 5: in and out of existence. But what I think Luke
Speaker 5: is saying that makes it different is that it's not
Speaker 5: random and it's that the conditions have made it possible
Speaker 5: to be in this realm with us. But if those
Speaker 5: conditions change, then they lose coherence and they actually actually
Speaker 5: haven't popped out of existence. They're still in this realm
Speaker 5: with us, but they just don't have enough structure. So Luke,
Speaker 5: did I butcher that? Or did I now?
Speaker 6: That was?
Speaker 4: Yeah? That was good? That was good. So and that
Speaker 4: makes sense.
Speaker 7: It's the same if I was to hit an air
Speaker 7: horn from my driveway one hundred yards away, you could
Speaker 7: probably hear that half mile way you couldn't. That doesn't
Speaker 7: mean that there was not sound waves that were emitted,
Speaker 7: but they have dissipated to such a level that they're
Speaker 7: pretty much negligible at that point. But the sound waves
Speaker 7: were still created and they're still out there in the ether.
Speaker 2: So I see what you're saying.
Speaker 6: So use that same example, but reduce the atmospheric pressure
Speaker 6: around you.
Speaker 7: Okay, the sound would definitely go a lot further, but
Speaker 7: eventually it will dissipate out if not enacted by any.
Speaker 6: Other force, right, And then reduce it more, Okay, and
Speaker 6: then reduce it more until the point that the sound
Speaker 6: wave itself doesn't really have much structure to it, and
Speaker 6: it's going to change in sound, and it is going to,
Speaker 6: if anything, not not be able to go anywhere at all,
Speaker 6: and it's going to completely dissipate. Okay, So that is
Speaker 6: that is what I'm saying. The whole wave particle duality
Speaker 6: part is is particles are just for the most part
Speaker 6: us waveforms interesting. So the whole emission, curl and rebound
Speaker 6: cycle is extremely compressed to a state that it is
Speaker 6: doing it so much that to us or to any
Speaker 6: sensor or to whatever, it's going to look like solid matter.
Speaker 2: And what do you mean by that? It's going to
Speaker 2: look like solid matter.
Speaker 6: It's going to look like what we typically view as
Speaker 6: a you know, iron atom or a whatever atom you
Speaker 6: can think of in the classical sense, because it actually
Speaker 6: has interactions around it to compress its waveform into an
Speaker 6: actual structure.
Speaker 2: I see.
Speaker 7: So you're talking about energy at the most finite possible
Speaker 7: level being able to be formed into actual matter that
Speaker 7: we have all around us.
Speaker 2: Because we've said this a million times.
Speaker 7: All matter is is a series of energy and vibrations, right,
Speaker 7: That's it.
Speaker 2: So this is essentially what you're saying is.
Speaker 7: The motor that's giving the atomic level, the energy and
Speaker 7: the vibrations exactly.
Speaker 6: Okay, I'm with you that, and I'm showing you how
Speaker 6: it keeps jumping in scale to eventually become me and you,
Speaker 6: to eventually become a tree, to eventually become a squirrel,
Speaker 6: to eventually become whatever.
Speaker 5: Okay, he has an example here that he'll show of
Speaker 5: a hydrogen Once we get to that level.
Speaker 3: Now we're talking about just strictly physical reality with this,
Speaker 3: or does it go beyond physical reality?
Speaker 6: What you view as non physical reality is also happening
Speaker 6: parallel and depending on the structure, depends on what part
Speaker 6: of everything that's going on you're able to interact.
Speaker 3: With able to interact with how so?
Speaker 4: Yeah, so.
Speaker 6: Remember last time I was talking about when you do
Speaker 6: you know, basically DMT trips or anything of the sort.
Speaker 6: And you know, even if we're talking about astral projection
Speaker 6: anything like that, light itself is dependent on coherence and
Speaker 6: if you drop or reduce your you know, brain waves
Speaker 6: to a certain extent, you're for the most part, going
Speaker 6: to be able to view different parts of the spectrum,
Speaker 6: stuff that we usually aren't able to see.
Speaker 5: Yes, I think that his theory is explaining the lunar wave,
Speaker 5: like this is it?
Speaker 2: You guys?
Speaker 5: Lunar wave has been a mystery since twenty twelve, and
Speaker 5: I've been killing myself wondering what can explain the lunar wave?
Speaker 5: And how funny is it that Crow's solar work all
Speaker 5: these years later is how helping us realize that it's
Speaker 5: just another emission pressure wave coming off of the Sun
Speaker 5: that could be causing these waves. And it's these specific
Speaker 5: conditions like the emission pressure, torsion and dispersion that allowed
Speaker 5: the telescope to view it. I mean, am I crazy
Speaker 5: for thinking that this is it? Or am I just
Speaker 5: wishful wishfully on hopiu them.
Speaker 6: I think it is not a coincidence that it seems
Speaker 6: like every time an event like that is videoed, it
Speaker 6: seems to line up with lunar or solar cycles, you know,
Speaker 6: whether the moon is about to be full, whether it
Speaker 6: is just finished being full, whether we're going through a
Speaker 6: period of high solar activity. I mean, these are all
Speaker 6: basically expressions of these same values that I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: So like the solstice is and stuff like that too,
Speaker 3: or no.
Speaker 6: It can be because when we're talking about the macro
Speaker 6: there are definitely a lot of interactions as of right
Speaker 6: now that we're not able to measure that are probably there. So, like,
Speaker 6: for example, whenever I was one of the last episodes
Speaker 6: I was on, I was talking about how modified or
Speaker 6: modified uh, Newtonian and modified relativity are basically coming out
Speaker 6: as of right now to say that they are actually
Speaker 6: more than likely more field interactions than we're actually accounting for.
Speaker 6: And it's not just gravity out there.
Speaker 3: Hell yeah, dude, Yeah, we're getting into the we're getting
Speaker 3: into the spooky stuff right now.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: And so in the theory, some of them aren't explicitly outlined,
Speaker 6: but they every quantum interpretation, every law, uh, basically every
Speaker 6: free pre requisite to.
Speaker 4: Present a.
Speaker 6: I guess you could say, like a like a realistic
Speaker 6: theory that meets the expectations, the you know whatever, the benchmarks,
Speaker 6: all of that.
Speaker 4: It's in there.
Speaker 6: If anybody has any questions about how a certain part
Speaker 6: is met, you can email me and I can actually
Speaker 6: send you like the full, basically full detail of how
Speaker 6: exactly it's met. Because when we're talking about quantum interpretations
Speaker 6: they get pretty weird. So, for example, a lot of
Speaker 6: people don't know this, but how superposition itself works, right,
Speaker 6: and how quantum computers are actually able to do their thing.
Speaker 6: It's because in wave function, that function itself represents all
Speaker 6: knowable information that that is actually basically a quantum postulate.
Speaker 4: That's what they believe.
Speaker 6: So when it is in a decoherent state, which both
Speaker 6: of us, both me and quantum agree on as being
Speaker 6: the same state, because wave interactions are actually able to
Speaker 6: overlap and interact with each other because they're not as condensed,
Speaker 6: you have all knowable information going on at one time,
Speaker 6: which allows for these zeros and ones at the same
Speaker 6: time to where quantum computers are able to do everything
Speaker 6: as fast as they are.
Speaker 2: So essentially you're saying that this works in unison with
Speaker 2: the Higgs boson. Correct.
Speaker 6: No, I've reclassified what the Higgs boson actually is and
Speaker 6: what it actually does. So there's for the most part,
Speaker 6: a actual pressure field that is basically going on in
Speaker 6: the background. It is never absolutely zero. It is always
Speaker 6: at least got some kind of structure, some kind of
Speaker 6: coherence that's within it. Coherence itself actually carries knowledge, It
Speaker 6: carries the structure, it carries memory, it carries information. So
Speaker 6: that field itself is kind of what they're talking about
Speaker 6: with the Higgs boson. But with that field again, I've
Speaker 6: been able to, you know, basically hit every single benchmark
Speaker 6: for decay rates, for collapse time, for all wave functions,
Speaker 6: even g factors, literally everything. There's there's not a single
Speaker 6: part of at least quantum that I haven't been able
Speaker 6: to hit right dead on the empirical values, even when
Speaker 6: I'm talking about right mathetically with equation.
Speaker 5: So he's being super humble and in the most polite
Speaker 5: way possible is saying that he has an equation for
Speaker 5: freaking anything, and we want anybody to please email him
Speaker 5: who can, who has any questions at all, whatsoever, because
Speaker 5: this is like the unified It's like people always talk
Speaker 5: about unified field theory. He's fixed electromagnetic universe theory by
Speaker 5: adding this scaler precursor to electromagnetism. That's what he's added
Speaker 5: to the equation to make it completely unified, and then
Speaker 5: he can prove it with empirical data because his equations
Speaker 5: explain it based on the first principles.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: So, the way the field actually works is when we
Speaker 6: go back to the you know, the first implementation of
Speaker 6: it before it basically got split apart. Imagine, uh, you
Speaker 6: know spacetime, the field from relativity mixed with Higgs boson,
Speaker 6: mixed with the original electromagnetic field or even ether that
Speaker 6: was proposed. When you bring them together and see what
Speaker 6: the field actually looks like and how each individual part
Speaker 6: fills the holes in the other, it makes it pretty
Speaker 6: pretty straightforward for the most part.
Speaker 2: Wow.
Speaker 6: Okay, So for the next part, this one is gonna
Speaker 6: be the one that's actually fun because I realized something
Speaker 6: actually today about this one.
Speaker 2: But when you.
Speaker 6: Have a basically the knot itself has collected enough energy
Speaker 6: to where it is emitting its emission pressure right, it's
Speaker 6: doing its rebound.
Speaker 4: It's doing the curl. It's doing its rebound.
Speaker 6: You get what you're seeing here to where in the
Speaker 6: middle you have the scale or knot, you have energy.
Speaker 6: This is mainly just a field example to show you
Speaker 6: the actual forces that are going on instead of just
Speaker 6: you know, crowding it up with energy itself. But the
Speaker 6: knot itself as it constricts, eventually the energy compresses and
Speaker 6: then it expands out into its pressure wave.
Speaker 4: It's a mission wave.
Speaker 6: As that continues to go out and torsion takes back over,
Speaker 6: we get the curl, which is where the magnetic curl
Speaker 6: comes from and energy is redirected back into the knot. Naturally,
Speaker 6: where that curl occurs, we have a toroid magnetic field.
Speaker 6: So where we're always talking about the toroids with inside toroids,
Speaker 6: withinside toroids, this is a natural outcome of the basically
Speaker 6: the scaler knot and the energy interactions going on. And
Speaker 6: what's one thing that's interesting is if you go back
Speaker 6: to the knot, remember the mouth of it that you
Speaker 6: were talking.
Speaker 4: About where it overlaps.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so that's naturally where the toroid actually connects.
Speaker 2: That where I mean when you sayne the mouth.
Speaker 4: Right, So the mouth is actually right here.
Speaker 6: So inside of every basically magnetic field and particle that
Speaker 6: has these interactions going on. Remember magnetic fields go perpendicular
Speaker 6: to the flow of energy. The toroid naturally evolves from
Speaker 6: this and for the most part feeds back into the
Speaker 6: mouth of the knot itself. Now you can see it
Speaker 6: expanding and contracting here with the emission and the the
Speaker 6: torsion taken over and pulling energy back in. This is
Speaker 6: part of the whole breathing aspect that a lot of
Speaker 6: people talk about. This is also what we measure itself
Speaker 6: as frequency. So anytime you are reading any kind of
Speaker 6: frequency whatsoever, this is exactly what you're reading. And they
Speaker 6: do these at extremely high rates, or they could do
Speaker 6: it in slow rates in bulk properties. But this is
Speaker 6: continuously what's going on the whole process of expansion and
Speaker 6: contraction based off of the interaction between the torsion and
Speaker 6: the energy itself.
Speaker 7: Okay, so this is what causes those pressure waves we
Speaker 7: talked about earlier.
Speaker 6: This is for the most part, all of the actual
Speaker 6: field functions going on without getting crowded up with energy.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 7: Interesting, So you're saying that the rate at which these
Speaker 7: toroids breathe is what determines the state of matter for
Speaker 7: the substance that it becomes. Right, for instance, a solid
Speaker 7: We've heard this from a lot of like physical science classes.
Speaker 2: Liquids.
Speaker 7: They you know, the particles are moving at are relatively
Speaker 7: you know, they're fast, but not as fast. At a
Speaker 7: gaseous state, they're moving super fast, and at a solid
Speaker 7: state they're moving really slow. You're saying that this would
Speaker 7: be the movement that we are talking about. Correct, this
Speaker 7: is going to be the It's not going to be
Speaker 7: like a transverse movement. It's not going to be an
Speaker 7: actual physical movement through whatever the medium that it's in is.
Speaker 7: This is going to be just an expansion and contraction
Speaker 7: of the particle itself that it's doing at an extremely
Speaker 7: high rate. And for example, in a classical sense, when
Speaker 7: we're talking about solid particles, it's still doing this, it's
Speaker 7: just extremely contracted, so we're only really able to see
Speaker 7: the frequency coming off of it. So one of the
Speaker 7: images that I shared in one of the live chats
Speaker 7: that we had was basically a shell, right, And I
Speaker 7: think it was Tony because he's brilliant.
Speaker 6: He loves looking into stuff like this. He mentioned that
Speaker 6: this looks like Schrodinger's harmonic shells. That is because it is.
Speaker 6: So he's the one that came out with the basically
Speaker 6: the whole wave function equations for quantum all of that
Speaker 6: looking into how the wave functions actually interact with each other,
Speaker 6: how they work, and stated that the electrons for the
Speaker 6: most part, make actual shells when they're in their quantum state.
Speaker 6: Right in a classical sense, they're actually for the most
Speaker 6: part point particles, so they don't necessarily make a shell
Speaker 6: because the energy is condensed.
Speaker 4: But what you're seeing is.
Speaker 6: Just the basically the harmonic shells with the energy and
Speaker 6: all of it together, all of the motion that it
Speaker 6: itself is making, and again it's doing it at an
Speaker 6: incredibly fast rate to where you know, frequency is relative
Speaker 6: to size. So if we're looking at something credibly small
Speaker 6: and it's expanding and tracting at a slow rate for us,
Speaker 6: and honestly, if any device isn't actually tuned to it correctly,
Speaker 6: it's actually not going to be measured at the same
Speaker 6: frequency that it itself is actually at because frequency is
Speaker 6: relative to size. And that's one thing that I and
Speaker 6: I guess you could say, like the modern science agree on. Okay,
Speaker 6: so when we have multiple of these together, this is
Speaker 6: whenever they're going to start actually pulling together into what
Speaker 6: we see as protons, neutrons, electrons. Well, the electrons aren't
Speaker 6: going to be pulled in. But uh so this is
Speaker 6: a cork. This is the cork and anti cork pair
Speaker 6: where they're actually tied together but they actually have opposite spins.
Speaker 6: Trying to find out here this So ignore this little
Speaker 6: thing it does because it's a coding issue. But this
Speaker 6: is what you could view as a hydrogen atom itself.
Speaker 6: If I remember correctly, this one actually is based off
Speaker 6: of the equations that I have itself. For anybody that
Speaker 6: doesn't know and that is watching this, you see that
Speaker 6: weird little thing that the electron is doing.
Speaker 4: That's actually called the G factor.
Speaker 6: And what it is is it's a basically a calculation
Speaker 6: for magnetic momentum. Quantum has to do what is called
Speaker 6: a loop calculation for it, right, So basically they keep
Speaker 6: putting the energy back in, bringing it out, putting it
Speaker 6: back in, putting it out. The issue with that is
Speaker 6: if they do that, they run into a conservation of
Speaker 6: energy issue and run into infinite energies, so they have
Speaker 6: to renormalize it. I am able to calculate this right
Speaker 6: on the actual value just based off of those four
Speaker 6: values that I told you about before.
Speaker 3: Man, how you are able to put all of this
Speaker 3: together is pretty wild.
Speaker 5: And if you look at that shape as he's twirling
Speaker 5: it around, don't you see the analema that's happening micro
Speaker 5: macro just like the sun making the same shape. Yea
Speaker 5: from our perspective.
Speaker 6: Yeah, And this is something that I'm trying to look into.
Speaker 6: The issue is is trying to get the correct data
Speaker 6: to make actual calculations and trying to figure out, for
Speaker 6: the most part, what's actually going on with all of that,
Speaker 6: because I don't think it can be ignored that something
Speaker 6: at this scale, excuse me real quick, something at this
Speaker 6: scale is doing, you know, something that we see every
Speaker 6: year in the same exact manner and path.
Speaker 4: It's a little strange to me.
Speaker 6: But I mean, if this theory truly unifies the micro
Speaker 6: and macro, there's a good possibility that they're actually connected
Speaker 6: to each other.
Speaker 2: So how does your findings compare against what for instancern
Speaker 2: or anybody with the super collide or any of these things,
Speaker 2: how does your research compare with their findings?
Speaker 6: For the most part, I can come up with the
Speaker 6: same findings the same numbers, except I don't have to,
Speaker 6: you know, use any kind of loop corrections or use
Speaker 6: any I mean, for the most part, drastically long equations,
Speaker 6: because I'm going off of the I'm not gonna say fundamental,
Speaker 6: but I'm going off of the factors that are going
Speaker 6: on in the background that create what we are currently measuring.
Speaker 4: So, for example, I can use.
Speaker 6: The emission with rebound to calculate correctly B fields within magnetism.
Speaker 2: For those that don't know what is a B field.
Speaker 4: I don't remember the actual definition.
Speaker 2: On it right now, Okay, give it to amazing right.
Speaker 6: Basically, so in magnetism you have ean B fields.
Speaker 4: They for the most part, just.
Speaker 6: I think it's the vectorized version of how their movement
Speaker 6: actually goes.
Speaker 7: Okay, that's not like to say that a magnet with
Speaker 7: a north and south on it.
Speaker 2: You're not talking about that, correct.
Speaker 7: You're talking about if you were to take a magnet
Speaker 7: and put it in the middle of some ferrost dust
Speaker 7: and you'll see the wave patterns that form off of it.
Speaker 2: That's what you mean.
Speaker 4: I think that's one of them. I don't remember.
Speaker 6: See, that's one of the issues with doing this is
Speaker 6: like I'm when I'm looking for the act or trying
Speaker 6: to match the actual values, I have to use some
Speaker 6: of the equations from the theory to convert it over
Speaker 6: because what I'm working with is originally these four or
Speaker 6: five values depending on what's going on.
Speaker 2: Okay, houn Rose actually put it in chat here.
Speaker 7: A B field or magnetic field is a vector field
Speaker 7: that describes the magnetic force on moving electric charges, electric currents,
Speaker 7: and magnetic materials. It is produced by electric currents or
Speaker 7: changing electric fields, and is measured in units of Tesla's
Speaker 7: or t ah Okay, I want you. You can visualize
Speaker 7: a B field using magnetic field lines, where the tangent
Speaker 7: to the line at any point indicates the field's direction,
Speaker 7: and the density of the lines shows the strength.
Speaker 2: Okay, I got you, Now I'm with you.
Speaker 6: So those arose originally from the basically whenever they took
Speaker 6: the original maximum equations and vectorized them to make them
Speaker 6: more suitable for the industrial times, which I get, and
Speaker 6: to also simplify what's going on.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 6: So this is where things actually get pretty interesting when
Speaker 6: we talk about how the pressure waves interact with other
Speaker 6: shells whenever they interact with other particles, and how the
Speaker 6: whole energy transfer can work, what it looks like, and
Speaker 6: what it translates to compared to some of the other
Speaker 6: things that we see, for example with sound. So when
Speaker 6: these pressure waves are going across shells, they essentially travel
Speaker 6: along the surface of the shell. This is what I
Speaker 6: believe is being shown in the Shoot the Moon documentary
Speaker 6: and with what Crow is seeing traveling across the surface
Speaker 6: of the moon the moonwave.
Speaker 4: So I think that's what it's being called.
Speaker 7: But how big would that pulse need to be? For
Speaker 7: it to make that effect happen across the entire moon.
Speaker 6: Bro Well, the Sun's the one that is doing it, Okay,
Speaker 6: fair point, Okay.
Speaker 5: And you can look up on Wikipedia something called the
Speaker 5: heliospheric current sheet and I showed that to Luke and
Speaker 5: he's like, yeah, basically, so like it looks like this
Speaker 5: twirling floral thing that's emitting from the Sun. So that
Speaker 5: that does exist in mainstream understandings, and that is what
Speaker 5: Luke is saying is the emission pressure that's his exploration, right.
Speaker 4: So the so the the helio skirt is.
Speaker 6: Being measured currently by em waveform magnetism, which is going
Speaker 6: to be a symptom of what I'm talking about with this.
Speaker 6: So these pressure waves are going and what we actually
Speaker 6: observe as of right now and are able to measure
Speaker 6: is the electromagnetism in waveform that's coming off of this
Speaker 6: or that's coming off of the Sun. Okay, but we
Speaker 6: currently measure them in standard waveform instead of doing the
Speaker 6: three or four dimensional waveform like I'm talking about here.
Speaker 3: Gotcha.
Speaker 4: Now, when.
Speaker 6: Enough emission and enough rebound is happening, and enough energy
Speaker 6: is accumulating, you can end up getting multiple shells, and
Speaker 6: you can get multiple pressure wave interactions going on withinside
Speaker 6: the shells themselves, which will look like this. Now, this
Speaker 6: is just a simplify version. This could be happening multiple
Speaker 6: multiple times depending on the pulse rate of the particle itself. Okay,
Speaker 6: Now what's interesting is if I track the wave interactions
Speaker 6: inside of a particle depending on the frequency at which
Speaker 6: it pulses. Now, torsion is also a factor, which we
Speaker 6: can talk about later how that affects the visual of it.
Speaker 6: But if there's no torsion and I just take a
Speaker 6: standard nucleus right and pulse it at a specific frequency,
Speaker 6: we get something very interesting. So how many people are familiar?
Speaker 6: And if you're not, go ahead and look it up.
Speaker 6: And if you're watching this you can actually visually see it.
Speaker 6: But if we pulse sound at four hundred and thirty too, hurts.
Speaker 6: Do you know the cimatic pattern that it creates.
Speaker 2: Jonathan, this would be your area, sir.
Speaker 3: Would it be like the flower of life or something
Speaker 3: like that.
Speaker 4: I don't know if it's the flower of life, but
Speaker 4: it's I don't know. If you want to pull up
Speaker 4: a example real quick.
Speaker 3: It's like the the OM symbol isn't it.
Speaker 6: I think it's just a It kind of looks like
Speaker 6: a like a wagon wheel, honestly.
Speaker 3: All right, let's see what most people.
Speaker 5: Are familiar with is that the four three to two
Speaker 5: is very formed and it looks beautiful, like there's defined leaves.
Speaker 5: But then when you look at four forty hurts, it
Speaker 5: looks all distorted and blurred. Right, So four thirty two
Speaker 5: is more crisp with that kind of snowflake geometry.
Speaker 3: Right, yeah, if you stop sharing the screen, I'll show
Speaker 3: the image very quick and we will get there. All right,
Speaker 3: So is it something like this? Hold on? Is that
Speaker 3: you there? We go? Yeah, somewhere up in here? Oh,
Speaker 3: here we go? This would be four thirty two. This
Speaker 3: is more for forty Yeah, four forty definitely seems a
Speaker 3: lot more distorted.
Speaker 6: If you scroll down, there might be a better example
Speaker 6: of it, like naturally, because I think one of the
Speaker 6: original images I saw was like this.
Speaker 4: Think they were actually doing it inside of glass bottle.
Speaker 6: There we go, we go to that right there, so
Speaker 6: you can see the pattern created by the four hundred
Speaker 6: and thirty two herds.
Speaker 3: Right yep.
Speaker 6: Now let me share the screen again, all right, Now,
Speaker 6: this is going to be if we're tracking solely wave interactions,
Speaker 6: not energy or anything like that, just wave interactions inside
Speaker 6: of the particle itself. So what's interesting is, again you
Speaker 6: saw the simatic of four hundred and thirty two hertz.
Speaker 4: It's the same thing. I think.
Speaker 3: Cool, wow, yeah, it's identical.
Speaker 6: Almost, And this is created by a nucleus. Now, I
Speaker 6: don't think there's actually any particle that's going to be
Speaker 6: emitting at this low of a frequency, but it is
Speaker 6: to show you that there is a literal connection between
Speaker 6: sound and energy and how it's measured. You could honestly
Speaker 6: say that within every particle, even in its compressed state,
Speaker 6: there are still wave interactions going on creating certain patterns,
Speaker 6: and even if we go inside of it, you can
Speaker 6: see the actual nucleus itself and how it continues this pattern.
Speaker 6: So each one of these spheres is basically a interaction
Speaker 6: point between the waves created by the geometry of the
Speaker 6: shell and the pulse rate of the nucleus.
Speaker 7: So just a crazy questionnaire, where is the toroidal knots
Speaker 7: in this example that you're showing us right now each
Speaker 7: individual sphere or is that all?
Speaker 6: It's it's literally this part right here, gotcha in the
Speaker 6: very center.
Speaker 4: So what what we view.
Speaker 6: As the now the tore it itself can actually be
Speaker 6: much larger than the particle. It depends on the amount
Speaker 6: of energy that it's being expressed and brought back. If
Speaker 6: it's a lot going on, then obviously the magnetic field
Speaker 6: is going to be much larger, or it could be
Speaker 6: much more compact.
Speaker 4: It could be.
Speaker 6: For the most part, pretty weak and unable to detect
Speaker 6: if it doesn't have a lot of energy going on.
Speaker 6: But that whole interaction is actually going to be happening
Speaker 6: inside of the nucleus once we get to you know,
Speaker 6: the different shell layers and all of the interactions are
Speaker 6: able to happen. Because I remember in the last two
Speaker 6: that I showed you, I showed the the pressure waves
Speaker 6: going on inside of the actual structure itself and then
Speaker 6: going across the surface. This is the accumulation if it
Speaker 6: is able to be pulsed at you know, the specific
Speaker 6: rate to literally show that even at a at an
Speaker 6: energetic level, what we're seeing with cimatics is you know,
Speaker 6: basically a translation of what's happening withinside of energy itself.
Speaker 3: So essentially this is what it looks like whenever it
Speaker 3: is just purely the the blueprint of frequency itself.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 6: I think it's a matter of waveform being a foundation
Speaker 6: to everything in existence, whether we're talking about energy, sound,
Speaker 6: or physical matter or spiritual realm or whatever. I mean,
Speaker 6: it's all this further shows that it's all actually connected
Speaker 6: when we get into individual's work, Like I don't know
Speaker 6: if y'all are familiar with Walter Russell, but whenever he's
Speaker 6: talking about the different octaves of elements, literally that is
Speaker 6: a one for one with what I'm saying when I'm
Speaker 6: talking about you know, basically, if you mixed Schroedinger's work
Speaker 6: and Russell's work together, you get what I'm talking about here,
Speaker 6: and how different elements are actually able to interact. They're
Speaker 6: able to combine into other things. How some of the
Speaker 6: ones that he predicted were later on discovered and I
Speaker 6: can show you exactly how they were able to exist
Speaker 6: because they all have stability points or what he talks
Speaker 6: about with the different octaves of it, because it all
Speaker 6: depends on what those four individual values are, which determines
Speaker 6: the amount of energy inside of their which determines the
Speaker 6: amount of shells, which would he would consider octaves. It
Speaker 6: all works together and is expressed in what we are
Speaker 6: currently measured or measuring stuff in. So, like back to
Speaker 6: the toy thing, you know how a lot of people
Speaker 6: talk about how on one side there is a black
Speaker 6: hole and on the other side there is a white hole. Right,
Speaker 6: that's just in the middle. It it's just a scaler.
Speaker 6: Not there's not actually a white or black hole. It's
Speaker 6: just that knot that's in the middle that allows the
Speaker 6: energy to be collected. So even though the electromagnetic field
Speaker 6: actually looks toroidal, it's actually not. It is a quasi
Speaker 6: stable magnetic field because on each mouth of the knot,
Speaker 6: so to speak, is actually where the negative poles are.
Speaker 4: And then the.
Speaker 6: Positive pole is an a radial multidirectional manner because that
Speaker 6: is how the energy is expressed because remember positive and
Speaker 6: negative is only a dictation of energy given and energy received.
Speaker 6: So it pulls in energy through the mouths of the
Speaker 6: knot and it is expressed radially through the knot.
Speaker 3: Yeah, this is uh, this is pretty damn mind blowing.
Speaker 3: And the way that you're you know, describing it in
Speaker 3: a sense, I mean it makes it pretty you know, chewable,
Speaker 3: like it's I feel like I'm getting a decent understanding
Speaker 3: about what you know, how you're describing.
Speaker 6: It right now. That one was just wave interactions. If
Speaker 6: we actually look at the if we put the wave
Speaker 6: interactions to go on in the background currently like how
Speaker 6: they are, and we only view energy as it is,
Speaker 6: this is what it looks like. You're gonna have to
Speaker 6: give it six seconds. Anytime I do this one on
Speaker 6: my phone, it like almost automatically crashes my phone.
Speaker 3: Mmm.
Speaker 6: So the reason being is because even though you're only
Speaker 6: seeing a particle here, all of the actual wave interactions
Speaker 6: are going on in the background, So there's a lot
Speaker 6: of steps actually going on in here. That is the
Speaker 6: reason why it crashes my phone. But of course on
Speaker 6: my computer it's fine. But what you're seeing is the
Speaker 6: accumulation of all those wave interactions, the entire process of emission,
Speaker 6: of torsion, of rebound, of dispersion, all accumulating into what
Speaker 6: we view as a particle.
Speaker 3: Whatever. Am I tripping or does this look like a
Speaker 3: still image?
Speaker 6: No, it's it's oh I like you see the edges, Yeah,
Speaker 6: this is this is actually a particle.
Speaker 4: Oh, this is actually a sphere.
Speaker 7: Okay, okay, okay, So why are the edges doing that then,
Speaker 7: is that just the way the digital thing is making
Speaker 7: it look?
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's just basically the amount of frames that were
Speaker 6: allowed for the simulation.
Speaker 2: Okay, gotcha.
Speaker 4: Yeah. If I didn't any higher, it probably crashed my computer.
Speaker 2: Okay, fair enough.
Speaker 6: Yeah, because there's there's like I said, there's a lot
Speaker 6: of interactions going on in the background.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 6: But what this does is it each value when they're
Speaker 6: changed and when they actually start allowing the combination of things.
Speaker 4: So depending on.
Speaker 6: What uh interval the emission and the rebound is, can
Speaker 6: actually determine whether this particle itself UH is able to
Speaker 6: pair with another one. If it is a particle that
Speaker 6: is extremely basically selfish, it doesn't give a lot of energy,
Speaker 6: it doesn't receive a lot of energy. We have something
Speaker 6: along the lines of an inert gas. That's actually why
Speaker 6: when you go through the periodic table that I made
Speaker 6: with these values, if you look at the inert gases,
Speaker 6: their emission and torsion when equating for rebound is all equalized.
Speaker 6: So they're not giving a lot of energy that they're
Speaker 6: not pulling back, and because of the actual cycle of
Speaker 6: emission plus rebound, they're not able to pull in other
Speaker 6: energy from you know, basically any other element. What this
Speaker 6: does is it not only gives you a stepping stone
Speaker 6: to why some elements are actually able to combine together
Speaker 6: and why some are able to create bulk properties. It
Speaker 6: also gives you a example of why, for example, certain
Speaker 6: medicines work, why certain techniques such as rife machines work,
Speaker 6: because once you've learned the values and learn you know
Speaker 6: if your illness is causing this value withinside of the
Speaker 6: you know, cellular structure of whatever organ Depending on the
Speaker 6: frequency you admit from the rife machine or some similar
Speaker 6: type of technology, you'll be able to modulate it and
Speaker 6: put it back to its normal rate. So, as per
Speaker 6: what Royal said, you're not curing the disease, you're reversing it.
Speaker 3: Just bringing it back to its natural function.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: And when you look at actual medications, these medications have
Speaker 6: different compounds inside of them, They have different atomic structures
Speaker 6: to them, so they themselves have different values which will
Speaker 6: tell you exactly what they're able to bind to, what
Speaker 6: they're able to grab onto, what they're able to actually
Speaker 6: help with. Beause a lot of people don't realize this,
Speaker 6: but when we're talking about like say you take a
Speaker 6: medication that you know, binds to, say, for instance, sugar
Speaker 6: within your body or helps regulate it that whole binding process.
Speaker 6: What that actually is is a electromagnetic interaction. The whole
Speaker 6: binding process is electromagnetic as a whole. The only reason
Speaker 6: it can actually do that is because of electromagnetism. It's
Speaker 6: one of the things that's actually not necessarily translated from
Speaker 6: you know, particle theory and you know any chemist to
Speaker 6: the actual pharmaceutical industry. So if you take some kind
Speaker 6: of electromagnetic device, you can actually modulate everything to the
Speaker 6: same values of what that medication would do, and you
Speaker 6: would do the same thing.
Speaker 2: Which is essentially what the rife machine does.
Speaker 7: Again, go to real rite Technologies and use the promo
Speaker 7: code cult at checkout to experience the real healing powers
Speaker 7: for yourself.
Speaker 6: But anyway, yeah, and I mean that what this does is,
Speaker 6: you know, since we can account for the underlying interactions
Speaker 6: that for the most part, you know, mystify us and
Speaker 6: we're not able to explain.
Speaker 4: Yet this gives that.
Speaker 6: So now we're able to get a deeper understanding of
Speaker 6: what's going on all the way from the micro to
Speaker 6: the cellular level to the molecular level to the level
Speaker 6: that your organs are working at. Because we know every
Speaker 6: organ works off of a certain frequency to what your
Speaker 6: actually body is working at. They all have actual bulk
Speaker 6: properties to them which change the individual values of what
Speaker 6: I've given here. So like, for example, well, how H
Speaker 6: two O is actually seen as a a negative?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 6: It's actually because both hydrogens are giving uh the energy
Speaker 6: that they have because they're overly positive to the oxygen atom.
Speaker 7: I don't know I've ever heard water being inherently negative before.
Speaker 6: But negative in that sense of way. But as far
Speaker 6: as charge goes.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and that's what I mean, Like, I've don't I've
Speaker 7: never actually looked into it.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna be honest with you.
Speaker 4: I think H two O was Yeah.
Speaker 7: I thought water was more of a neutral as far
Speaker 7: as that goes. But I again, I've never actually looked
Speaker 7: at it as far as it's overall charge.
Speaker 2: But okay, it's programmable.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 5: Well, you can put a lot of people. I mean,
Speaker 5: have you seen all these people selling products to structure water?
Speaker 5: I myself question everything. I'm like, is this real? But
Speaker 5: people talk about how they use these things to structure
Speaker 5: water and that it will taste better, or that it
Speaker 5: will have some kind of healing property. And then there's
Speaker 5: the idea of like a moto and putting your intention
Speaker 5: into the water and then people will freeze it and
Speaker 5: it will be like a nice image or a negative image.
Speaker 3: So I did that myself actually, like a year ago,
Speaker 3: where I held a container of water and I put
Speaker 3: my own thoughts and intentions into it, and I pulled
Speaker 3: it out and I saw two MS. Maybe it was
Speaker 3: representing metamistics. Maybe it was representing my daughter who has
Speaker 3: two ms in her actually three m's in her name.
Speaker 3: But you know what I mean, Like, it's weird how
Speaker 3: that just happens, But hey, I'm I'm a believer in.
Speaker 2: It, So I just looked it up.
Speaker 7: It says pure water is not inherently negatively charged. However,
Speaker 7: each water molecule is polar, meaning it has a slight
Speaker 7: negative charge on the oxygen side and a slight positive
Speaker 7: charge on the hydrogen side, giving it a negative or
Speaker 7: positive is kind of a it's kind of got. Both
Speaker 7: water molecules collectively are neutral overall, but exists exhibit polarity
Speaker 7: due to the oxygen atoms stronger attraction to electrons and
Speaker 7: the hydrogen atoms.
Speaker 2: So okay, I'm with.
Speaker 5: You, right, And I don't know why, but for some reason,
Speaker 5: maybe someone can explain this. In a waterfall, when the
Speaker 5: water is hitting the rocks, that interaction creates ozone and
Speaker 5: that's why you get that beautiful smell at the waterfall,
Speaker 5: because it's actually converting something that's in there with during
Speaker 5: that interaction into ozone, which I forgot if starts three
Speaker 5: molecules of oxygen or maybe that's broad.
Speaker 3: That's interesting. I didn't know that.
Speaker 7: I know that I personally hate the smell of ozone
Speaker 7: because the only time I smell it is whenever I'm
Speaker 7: wearing that helmet and I get struck with another like
Speaker 7: another metal piece, and it will send a spark into
Speaker 7: the helmet and then I get that wonderful smell.
Speaker 2: Of ozone, which drops the oxygen contents. I'm gasping for air.
Speaker 5: But oh my god, y Yosemite falls. Give it one
Speaker 5: more chance with Yosemite falls, and then you'll know or
Speaker 5: just go. Don't do any other example of it except
Speaker 5: Yosemite falls.
Speaker 3: Okay, all right, Yeah, I imagine with water is probably
Speaker 3: a little more pleasing.
Speaker 7: I would hope you know, then't feel like you're about
Speaker 7: to suffocate. But you know whatever, Yeah.
Speaker 6: I feel like where I live at anytime, like water's involved.
Speaker 6: Either it just smells like straight like swamp water, or
Speaker 6: it smells like moss water.
Speaker 4: Like that's it. That's the only two flavors you get.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I feel that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, go down to Bourbon Street.
Speaker 7: Oh no, no, bourbon water. That we ain't talking ozone.
Speaker 7: That would be what's the equivalent of anti matter, But
Speaker 7: on the ozone layer of.
Speaker 2: This, that's what we talk about. Yeah, your dreams go
Speaker 2: to die.
Speaker 3: Big facts.
Speaker 4: Anyway, But.
Speaker 6: The basically the ability to for the most part explain
Speaker 6: a lot of like ancient symbologies stuff like that in
Speaker 6: a modern sense to me is actually starting to get
Speaker 6: really interesting because it seems like, you know, we've always
Speaker 6: kind of had this idea that maybe these ancient you know,
Speaker 6: civilizations knew a little bit more than what we think.
Speaker 6: And you know, we see glyphs, we see ruins, symbols,
Speaker 6: just all of this stuff together, we see you know,
Speaker 6: practice of cimatic type patterns.
Speaker 4: Just to find out that.
Speaker 6: Maybe they actually did have somewhat of a knowledge of
Speaker 6: you know, what's going on. I'm not going to say
Speaker 6: they could mathematically explain it to the extent that we could,
Speaker 6: but there's a good possibility that they definitely had some
Speaker 6: idea of what was going one.
Speaker 3: Hundred percent, dude. And just like whenever we had crow
Speaker 3: on a few days ago. It's like there has to
Speaker 3: be some kind of d of evolution that is going
Speaker 3: on right now because we look at them like they were,
Speaker 3: you know, borderline cavemen, and we think that we're the
Speaker 3: pinnacle of humanity, and that is, in my opinion, couldn't
Speaker 3: be farther from the truth. You know, I can't even
Speaker 3: remember five phone numbers anymore, you know what I'm saying, Like,
Speaker 3: just yeah, we're maybe we're smarter because we have a
Speaker 3: black mirror that's attached into our pocket all the time.
Speaker 3: But as far as the human understanding goes, I would
Speaker 3: venture to say that they were I mean, they're basically
Speaker 3: aliens compared to us, you know, with their level of
Speaker 3: just understanding and mathematics and cymatics and all that stuff.
Speaker 3: And even you know, you can just look at you know,
Speaker 3: old school cathedrals and look at all the stained glass,
Speaker 3: and I mean that's simatics in a sense if you
Speaker 3: really think about it.
Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 6: I mean we I think they've actually done studies on
Speaker 6: inside of like old churches and old moss and all
Speaker 6: of these old religious buildings that inside of there there
Speaker 6: are certain frequencies that are naturally emitted, and they tend
Speaker 6: to be like, for the most part, calming frequencies. I
Speaker 6: don't think at this point in time we can just
Speaker 6: chalk that up to coincidence anymore.
Speaker 5: You guys, there's a man named Randy Masters, and he's
Speaker 5: a harmonics mathematicians who makes tuning forks tuning forks, and
Speaker 5: he's very elderly, but so full of energy and you know,
Speaker 5: a childlike innocence and zest for life that you're just like,
Speaker 5: I wonder if this guy's gonna live forever. So I
Speaker 5: know this guy personally, and I can totally hook you
Speaker 5: up with his information because he's such a lovely man.
Speaker 5: He was in the Pyramid of Giza and they figured
Speaker 5: out a certain they were experimenting with different frequencies, and
Speaker 5: they found a frequency where at one point they were
Speaker 5: looking up at the top of the pyramid and they
Speaker 5: saw the stars through the top of the pyramid. I know,
Speaker 5: it sounds so unbelievable. I have cognitive dissonance myself. But
Speaker 5: I mean, it's such a trip. And then in another situation,
Speaker 5: he was in a dark room and they hit a
Speaker 5: certain frequency within a certain condition and they were able
Speaker 5: to see like a blue light come into existence towards
Speaker 5: the ceiling. So I mean, it's a shame that we
Speaker 5: don't in the modern world. Why don't we have a
Speaker 5: cimatics library that this frequency equals this and if you
Speaker 5: mix this frequency with that, this happens.
Speaker 7: So I would love to have him on the show
Speaker 7: and ask a bevy of questions, because pyramids inherently are
Speaker 7: really bad at use for sound frequency anything. That's why, like,
Speaker 7: for instance, the bast Pro pyramid that was built to
Speaker 7: be a concert hall because the theory was that pyramids
Speaker 7: are built to do things with resident frequencies and things.
Speaker 7: They only hailed a few concerts there because the sound
Speaker 7: amplification was so dog shit inside.
Speaker 2: Of a pyramid structure.
Speaker 7: So I would be fascinated to hear it straight from
Speaker 7: this guy who for a profession deals with harmonics, to
Speaker 7: see what he did and the procedures that he used
Speaker 7: to get any kind of results out of the pyramid
Speaker 7: of Geeze.
Speaker 3: Absolutely, I think it might be a little bit different
Speaker 3: whenever we're talking about the resonancy, so the sound waves, right,
Speaker 3: but I think that and correct me if I'm wrong, roads,
Speaker 3: But is this more to do with how we perceive?
Speaker 3: So like, let's say you know you're sitting in the
Speaker 3: bottom of the pyramid and you look up. Is that
Speaker 3: and you look up and you see the stars or
Speaker 3: you see some kind of light that you know you
Speaker 3: wouldn't normally see if you're trying to look directly up
Speaker 3: at the top of the pyramid. Would it would these
Speaker 3: frequencies essentially be removing a little bit of the filter
Speaker 3: that our mind puts there? Is it like kind of
Speaker 3: I don't want to say manipulating.
Speaker 7: Are on the roof invisible? Or is it making you
Speaker 7: able to see better?
Speaker 3: Yes? Basically what I'm trying to.
Speaker 5: Say, I don't know. But I would want to know
Speaker 5: what Luke thinks because if he could have an answer
Speaker 5: for that, Like, I mean, it's his theory that would
Speaker 5: have an explanation for everything.
Speaker 4: I mean, I can look into it.
Speaker 5: Dunk it. But I put Randy's link in the chat
Speaker 5: just tell him Rose sent you, and he's so enthusiastic
Speaker 5: and he won awards for music that he made like
Speaker 5: sixty years ago. Oh wow, he's just a really beautiful
Speaker 5: human being. And maybe I explained everything really poorly. And
Speaker 5: when he when he explains it, m luke will it'll
Speaker 5: make sense to lose.
Speaker 3: Well, he's holding he's holding an ONC so I already like.
Speaker 4: Him, right right.
Speaker 5: I wanted you to look at him.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 6: One of the interesting things with quantum is the fact
Speaker 6: that waveform holds information. So if you're interacting and modulating waveforms,
Speaker 6: even by sound, because they're the same thing on different
Speaker 6: parts of the spectrum, you could basically be kind of
Speaker 6: messing with some kind of information or memory within the
Speaker 6: area by the sound waves. I mean pyramids, Yes, they
Speaker 6: are horrible with you know, acoustics and all that, but the.
Speaker 7: Hard angles you know, like amphitheaters, are all built round
Speaker 7: and upward because that's how sound travels. Pyramids being such
Speaker 7: hard angles like that, it doesn't do well for the
Speaker 7: bouncing reverberations and shit.
Speaker 2: But I mean, I don't.
Speaker 6: Know, right, But one thing that's very interesting about pyramids,
Speaker 6: even though they're bad and that kind of aspect, they
Speaker 6: do have a very interesting way of kind of deflecting
Speaker 6: and collecting energy itself. I mean, we talk about all
Speaker 6: the time of the gold cap being on the pyramid.
Speaker 4: We talk we see.
Speaker 6: Older reports of weird energetic interactions happening while people used
Speaker 6: to be able to climb on the pyramids. I mean
Speaker 6: we as I don't say that it's just by chance
Speaker 6: that they are in the alignment, that they are right, right,
Speaker 6: And I mean these different reports continue all throughout all
Speaker 6: the pyramids across the world. I mean, it isn't just
Speaker 6: solely there. And then whenever we talk about, for example,
Speaker 6: lay lines and how they are actually lined up with them,
Speaker 6: there's too much going on to just brush it off
Speaker 6: or wave a hand to a.
Speaker 3: Pile of rocks. Is yeah, definitely not that.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: And there's there was a there was more than a
Speaker 6: burial purpose for this, I mean, the whole idea of
Speaker 6: that being introduced, like yeah, sure I can get it,
Speaker 6: but all of this for just that I don't know,
Speaker 6: and then all of the things that actually follow with
Speaker 6: it is.
Speaker 4: It's there's just too much.
Speaker 7: It still kills me that like, for instance, Sudan has
Speaker 7: more pyramids than anywhere else on earth, like by a
Speaker 7: long shot, but we never hear about the crazy, like
Speaker 7: Sudanese kingdoms of old with all their crazy enlightenment and
Speaker 7: all these things. I don't know what, and I agree with,
Speaker 7: like the Pyramids of Gezea being built in the specific
Speaker 7: spot that they are there, there was done for a
Speaker 7: specific purpose. There were never any bodies found inside of it,
Speaker 7: so we know those were not burial chambers. And like
Speaker 7: there are some pyramids that were built to be burial chambers,
Speaker 7: like for sure, right like probably a thousand years after
Speaker 7: the Pyramids of Geese were built and things like that.
Speaker 7: I get that, But we never hear anything about the
Speaker 7: Sudanese people, even of Angel using these pyramids for any
Speaker 7: other kind of purpose like this.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I think it's all fascinating though, I
Speaker 2: really do so.
Speaker 3: The Pyramids of Giza are considered nearly perfect due to
Speaker 3: their precise alignment with the cardinal points of north, south, east,
Speaker 3: and west and their impressive engineering, which allowed them to
Speaker 3: be built with remarkable accuracy using techniques that are still
Speaker 3: not fully understood today. Their construction reflects advanced knowledge of
Speaker 3: geometry and astronomy, particularly in how they may have utilized
Speaker 3: the autumnal equinox for alignment. Oh shit, that's coming up.
Speaker 2: No doubt, no doubt.
Speaker 7: Like I said, I'm not saying the Pyramids of Gize
Speaker 7: ain't shit like, I'm not saying that at all. I'm
Speaker 7: just saying that, yeah, we have those pyramids, and Egypt
Speaker 7: has other pyramids, not just those.
Speaker 2: Big three that everybody talks about.
Speaker 7: Sudan's got like one hundred times that amount, But we
Speaker 7: never hear about, like the Sudanese people even ancients, having
Speaker 7: like some sort of crazy enlightenment using pyramids.
Speaker 2: For that purpose.
Speaker 3: Were they mathematically perfect.
Speaker 7: Not in the sense that the pyramids of Geeza are.
Speaker 7: Like I said, I'm not saying that they are equal
Speaker 7: to that sense, and I'm not saying that those were
Speaker 7: supposed to be burial chambers or anything like that. It's
Speaker 7: just like civilizations all across the world have built pyramids,
Speaker 7: you know, it's fascinating.
Speaker 2: To look at.
Speaker 3: Well. I mean, somebody must have done it first and
Speaker 3: told other cultures about, you know, this form of technology
Speaker 3: for lack of better word, And I mean, look, you're
Speaker 3: not just going to find these things all over the
Speaker 3: world just for them being a simple basic pile of stone,
Speaker 3: you know, like there had to have been some more
Speaker 3: reason and you know if what's what Rose is saying
Speaker 3: about that guy talking about like you strike a tuning
Speaker 3: fork and all of a sudden, you know, psychedelic shit
Speaker 3: starts to happen. I don't know, dude, I'm looking at.
Speaker 5: The tramscripts right now, and just like one of the
Speaker 5: things that they that I can't find, the part about
Speaker 5: the ceiling disappearing. But there was a in the chamber
Speaker 5: where there was a sarcophagus. There was a guy who
Speaker 5: went in there and he put a resonating device into
Speaker 5: the chamber and a membrane membrane across the top of
Speaker 5: the sarcophagus, and when he vibrated it, some of the
Speaker 5: cimatic patterns that were created on the membrane he stretched
Speaker 5: out matched for batim with some of the hieroglyphic symbols.
Speaker 3: Oh interesting, pile rocks, man, that is as impressive power
Speaker 3: rocks there, absolutely.
Speaker 5: And I just pressed control F pyramid on one of
Speaker 5: the Randy Masters episodes. So I'm going to send you
Speaker 5: more information and I bet you guys will love him.
Speaker 3: Awesome. Thanks Rol, Thank you.
Speaker 6: So looking in at Tesla's work with some of the
Speaker 6: stuff that he was talking about and whenever he was
Speaker 6: talking about the dielectric field and how there's an abundance
Speaker 6: of energy higher up. Right, So the vertical pressure gradient
Speaker 6: equation that I have in the theory is essentially that
Speaker 6: dielectric field.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: One thing that's interesting is how that field itself, because
Speaker 6: I've done some calculations with for example, the pyramids at Giza,
Speaker 6: how the granite foundation and the resonating frequencies within side
Speaker 6: of the King's chamber interacts with that field itself, the
Speaker 6: dielectric field, what, at least from what he called it,
Speaker 6: I would know if anybody wants to look into that
Speaker 6: and go through the equation and all that. Some of
Speaker 6: it I'm not gonna explicit explicitly state, but there are
Speaker 6: answers there to some of the more interesting questions we
Speaker 6: have about the pyramids.
Speaker 3: And you know what we've we've heard the theory about
Speaker 3: how all the pyramids were possibly like generators, like energy
Speaker 3: generators in a sense. And I mean it's not that
Speaker 3: crazy to me, dude, Like why if you think about it,
Speaker 3: you know, Tesla's all of his stuff, you know, got
Speaker 3: kind of got swept underneath the rug. And it does
Speaker 3: make sense, you know, with big oil and you're not
Speaker 3: going to make any money off of pulling stuff out
Speaker 3: of the sky for free, and so yeah, I mean,
Speaker 3: it's it's not that crazy to think, especially us being
Speaker 3: on a conspiracy podcast, that people will do anything for
Speaker 3: a buck and they will hide everything that is free.
Speaker 3: Like it just makes sense.
Speaker 6: Absolutely, I mean said dielectric what real quick, Luke, I'm
Speaker 6: looking up the dielectric field got to continue. I'm sorry,
Speaker 6: it's I think it's more along the lines of like
Speaker 6: what they viewed as the etheric field here. Like I said,
Speaker 6: I this the whole fear is field theory that I'm introducing.
Speaker 6: It has etheric aspects to it, but you know, as
Speaker 6: we've learned more about science, learn more about how all
Speaker 6: of the field interactions work there, it's a more complete field.
Speaker 6: I guess you could say.
Speaker 2: So, I guess this would be a decent example.
Speaker 6: Yeah, basically it's a it's so his explanation was that
Speaker 6: energy is very abundant all around, but it is only
Speaker 6: accessible higher up.
Speaker 4: I explain that by the.
Speaker 6: Equation because the basically the pressure at seed level is
Speaker 6: too high for the energy to actually be expressed freely.
Speaker 6: You actually have to go higher up in order for
Speaker 6: that energy to move more easily and be collected more easily.
Speaker 6: It can be done here, but not necessarily in the
Speaker 6: method that he was using, because it can also allow
Speaker 6: the the energy transferred through transverse waves like he was doing.
Speaker 3: Is that because like the energy you know, at sea
Speaker 3: level or lower is too dense.
Speaker 6: It's yes, yeah, basically, So imagine trying to move something
Speaker 6: through oil compared to through water.
Speaker 3: Okay, okay, yeah, it makes sense. Hmm all right, um, yeah,
Speaker 3: so this would be the dielectric shielding comparison. So this
Speaker 3: would be that energy that you're talking about that is
Speaker 3: in abundance above our heads.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 6: I wouldn't necessarily show it in that example. I would
Speaker 6: just imagine just imagine a piece of graph paper for
Speaker 6: the most part that once you get towards the bottom
Speaker 6: of the graph paper, the lines start getting closer together.
Speaker 7: Mmmm.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 6: This is actually for the most part how I model
Speaker 6: the the rate at which time is able to flow.
Speaker 6: The more dense environment you're in, energy is not able
Speaker 6: to flow as well. Time moves at a certain rate.
Speaker 6: The higher you go and the pressure gradient gets less,
Speaker 6: the easier time is able to flow. Because energy is
Speaker 6: able to flow more freely. This is why the time
Speaker 6: dilation equations I have for they line up with current
Speaker 6: relativity time dilation equations and their calculations as well. So
Speaker 6: where they do it based off of gravitational influence, I
Speaker 6: do it based off of the pressure gradient.
Speaker 7: And you're doing this because you don't correct me if
Speaker 7: I'm wrong. On a previous episode, you said that you
Speaker 7: don't belie even the theory of gravity. You think it
Speaker 7: is more of a pressure differential that keeps us down.
Speaker 2: Correct.
Speaker 6: Gravity is the gravity is what we measure it, and
Speaker 6: I just say it is not based off of mass
Speaker 6: based attraction.
Speaker 4: Okay, So I've.
Speaker 6: Done like in the Cavendish comparison that I ended up
Speaker 6: putting on the website with the theory, and I guess
Speaker 6: we can put that in this episode at the end
Speaker 6: of what as well, in case anybody wants to go
Speaker 6: and see it. But I, for the most part calculated
Speaker 6: the same exact effects measured in the Cavendish experiment back then,
Speaker 6: and even the newer ones that are done right now
Speaker 6: to where, uh, you know, this larger lead ball and
Speaker 6: the smaller last lead ball. The larger one pulls the
Speaker 6: smaller one with it across the pendulum. I've shown that
Speaker 6: the same force can be calculated based off of the
Speaker 6: values that I've used to explain the very beginning of
Speaker 6: quantum all the way to you know, actual elements. All
Speaker 6: those same forces line up to where in that experiment
Speaker 6: I can match the same force measured in the Cavendish experiment.
Speaker 2: Does it take more steps? Though?
Speaker 4: No?
Speaker 6: Okay, Actually, if I'm going to be one hundred percent honest,
Speaker 6: I don't always agree with Ocham's razor.
Speaker 2: That's what I was about to say.
Speaker 7: Usually Okham's razor, And I know, just like you said,
Speaker 7: there are examples where it's not it's so cut and dry, simple.
Speaker 7: Sometimes there is ulterior things that you got to look at.
Speaker 7: But more often than not, when we're talking about the
Speaker 7: scientific and physical world, Okham's razor is kind of the
Speaker 7: rule of the day.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 6: So, realistically speaking, if we lay out all of quantum
Speaker 6: theory and then roll out basically my verse of it,
Speaker 6: my part of that, because again, this is a unifying
Speaker 6: field theory, Okham's razor pretty much states kick quantum the
Speaker 6: fuck out.
Speaker 4: WHOA To that extent, so.
Speaker 7: You're talking all of quantum, yes, because they're using quantum
Speaker 7: computing now they're doing quantum mechanics to even send information
Speaker 7: across wires, and they can tell if it was watched
Speaker 7: in the time that like all these things, that's because
Speaker 7: of quantum quantum mechanics. You're saying that this theory kicks
Speaker 7: all of that out and says that that's bullshit.
Speaker 6: So when it comes down to things like that, I
Speaker 6: can calculate the same number. I can just further explain
Speaker 6: the exact reasons as to why that is able to
Speaker 6: happen and exactly what is going on there. That's why,
Speaker 6: for example, the wave functions from Schroedinger, I'm able to
Speaker 6: match quantum exactly at hydrogen and meet their theoreticals at
Speaker 6: copper and go pass to the theoretical at For example,
Speaker 6: I always forget how to say the last element's name,
Speaker 6: basically element one eighteen empirical evidence, I think stops at
Speaker 6: eighty two, which is osmium. But I'm able to match
Speaker 6: that exactly with how the wave function actually works, how
Speaker 6: it looks what the energy levels are in that entire system.
Speaker 6: Even going to classical, I'm able to match it exactly
Speaker 6: and show exactly how much energy and how much interactions
Speaker 6: even to you know, magnetism of how all of these
Speaker 6: are held together, how all of these interactions actually work,
Speaker 6: what forces are taking over, what what directs flow? Why
Speaker 6: it does that? Literally everything?
Speaker 2: So break this down for us in Layman's terms.
Speaker 7: Right, give the elevator speech if you will to All right,
Speaker 7: So everybody knows about the double slit experiment, right. They
Speaker 7: understand that at the atomic level, matter acts differently when
Speaker 7: it knows that it's being watched, which would give credence
Speaker 7: to the theory that says that all matter is sentient,
Speaker 7: at least at the most finite level. How does what
Speaker 7: you're saying dispel that, or at least prove it in
Speaker 7: another way?
Speaker 4: So collapse occurs.
Speaker 6: So when a particle goes from being wayformed to actual
Speaker 6: particle form, it occurs when the rebound pressure exceeds a threshold.
Speaker 6: There's no actual observer needed, and detection of that collapse
Speaker 6: is a natural consequence of the gradient induced rebound.
Speaker 7: So if there is an observer, you get a different
Speaker 7: result than it there is no observer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's been categorically proven.
Speaker 6: Yes, So remember the whole thing about particles being in isolation,
Speaker 6: They don't have as much friction on them from other
Speaker 6: interactions going on around them. So for the most part,
Speaker 6: whatever dominant forces are there or able to take over. Say,
Speaker 6: for example, if emission pressure is the dominant force, you're
Speaker 6: willing to have massive, massive expansion, which allows that particle
Speaker 6: to go into its superposition. And waveforms are able to
Speaker 6: overlap and interact with each other. Waveforms hold information, they
Speaker 6: hold memory, so you're getting multiple waveforms able to do
Speaker 6: multiple different things at one time. So when they go
Speaker 6: through the I think they're called the vacuum slits during
Speaker 6: the double split experiment. So there's actually a whole setup
Speaker 6: for those experiments. It's not just you know, shooting particles
Speaker 6: in between two slits and it hitting a film on
Speaker 6: the back wall. There's actually a vacuum like film and
Speaker 6: whole setup that's put on the sides to stop any
Speaker 6: other interactions from happening, because I mean, you could get
Speaker 6: literally a random you know, gamma particle coming from the
Speaker 6: Sun at any time that could completely you know, mess
Speaker 6: up the entire experiment. This is why in any kind
Speaker 6: of type of quantum computing you have to do like
Speaker 6: super cooling, you have to you basically have to stop
Speaker 6: any kind of interactions from happening, because that rebound that
Speaker 6: is created basically causes a identification.
Speaker 4: You have to identify.
Speaker 6: It basically causes this particle to tell this one exactly
Speaker 6: what it's doing and what's going on, because the information
Speaker 6: of the values have to be basically sent back and forth.
Speaker 6: I know, it gets really weird whenever we get down
Speaker 6: to what energy actually consists of, not just what it is,
Speaker 6: but what it does, what it holds, all of that,
Speaker 6: which is why coherence is a factor. Why coherence is
Speaker 6: a factor of memory, of structure, of information, of how
Speaker 6: easily it's able to regain its structure once it collapses back.
Speaker 6: Not to freak you out, but truth be told, both
Speaker 6: I and quantum agree on this. But whatever the underlying
Speaker 6: field is, it knows.
Speaker 2: You mean the field knows.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that is something that I and actually quantum agree on.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that it knows that it's being observed even before.
Speaker 6: It it knows about your actual cellular atomic structure. It
Speaker 6: actually knows about your thoughts. It can be influenced by
Speaker 6: your thoughts.
Speaker 3: Fuck, yeah, I ken, it's magic, baby. I've been trying
Speaker 3: to say it. I've been trying to scream it from
Speaker 3: the mountaintops. We are all magicians. That's really what's.
Speaker 4: Going on on.
Speaker 6: So do you remember a while I told you that
Speaker 6: eventually I'm going to get to a point to where
Speaker 6: I'm gonna go down that avenue. But I can literally
Speaker 6: formulize a spell. Reason why you're able to imprint a
Speaker 6: design onto water and it freezes is because your thoughts
Speaker 6: and not just that, but Jacob, like you've talked about before,
Speaker 6: to where our voice itself is just completely different. I
Speaker 6: mean we're talking about possible creation of energy. This all
Speaker 6: has an effect on every structure that is there, even
Speaker 6: the underlying field that is having interactions.
Speaker 4: In the background. Wow.
Speaker 6: That is again that is something that not only I state,
Speaker 6: but that's something that quantum states as well. There is
Speaker 6: quantum weirdness. It's been known for the longest time. I
Speaker 6: just give a further explanation behind why that weirdness actually
Speaker 6: is the way it is.
Speaker 5: This is like a really corny question, but like if
Speaker 5: there is someone in a coma right now and the
Speaker 5: family wants to just try anything, like what if they
Speaker 5: like whispered like the lullaby of their grandmother or something,
Speaker 5: or like sing to them a very specific song that
Speaker 5: would resonate with that specific individual. Do you think that
Speaker 5: could like break the yes scenes of what we understand
Speaker 5: and like wake them up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it could absolutely.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I believe that you know a lot of this stuff.
Speaker 3: You know, and not to get like woo woo or anything,
Speaker 3: but I think that a lot of everything, like every
Speaker 3: word that comes out of our mouth, every thought that
Speaker 3: is created within our minds. It's like it all of
Speaker 3: this has to do with intention and with intention and belief.
Speaker 3: I think like intention mixed with belief. I firmly am
Speaker 3: a believer that it can manifest just about anything in
Speaker 3: your life.
Speaker 6: To be honest to me what you want to be honest,
Speaker 6: I am giving what you could call the wou woo,
Speaker 6: a louder voice in the room. And that also extends
Speaker 6: to the spiritual or the religious community as well, because,
Speaker 6: for example, when we're talking about that original pulse, right,
Speaker 6: the expression of let there be light is it basically
Speaker 6: did two things. One, it was a voice that initiated
Speaker 6: the first pressure wave, and it was a statement or
Speaker 6: basically a command, introducing the very first forms of energy.
Speaker 7: Yeah, dude, I feel like magic, Like Jonathan you said
Speaker 7: a minute ago, like it's all magic. But we've also heard,
Speaker 7: and I tend to agree with this, that true scientific
Speaker 7: innovation is completely indiscernible from magic, right exactly, So it's
Speaker 7: not necessarily magic.
Speaker 2: Or anything woo woo it is.
Speaker 7: It's also not necessarily scientific either, it's more of just
Speaker 7: the Well, when I say it's not scientific, you're basically
Speaker 7: saying that this is just the reality of the matter
Speaker 7: that we have found ourselves living within. It's not it's
Speaker 7: not spiritual or religious or woo woo or magic or
Speaker 7: laboratory and all that.
Speaker 2: It's none of these things. It's just kind of it
Speaker 2: is what it is.
Speaker 3: I would actually disagree with that because a lot of
Speaker 3: these kind of like what he's talking about right now,
Speaker 3: like you, whenever you're interacting with this field that notices
Speaker 3: you and will almost obey your your wishes for a
Speaker 3: lack of a better word. But whether it is through
Speaker 3: faith or belief or intention or anything like that, you
Speaker 3: have to put yourself, I mean almost like in a
Speaker 3: spiritual zone, right like you almost got to put yourself
Speaker 3: into somewhat of a I don't want to say unnatural,
Speaker 3: just different than how we normally are and a regular
Speaker 3: you know, because most of the time people are walking
Speaker 3: around they're casting spells on themselves all day. I suck
Speaker 3: at this, or I'm you know, I'm gonna get sick
Speaker 3: from that or whatever. And if what he's saying is true,
Speaker 3: and there's a field that we can interact with and
Speaker 3: our words are almost manipulating that in order, and you
Speaker 3: know what I mean, Like it's just you're creating it.
Speaker 7: But he's also saying that he can make this happen
Speaker 7: with math and figures, not with like manifestation and intentions. Right,
Speaker 7: That's why I'm saying. I'm not saying that it disproves
Speaker 7: one or proves the other. I'm saying that it's more
Speaker 7: or less quantifying what is well.
Speaker 3: Hold on because every single time. Let's just use prayer
Speaker 3: for an example, because I feel like around the board
Speaker 3: everybody has probably prayed at least one time in their life. Right,
Speaker 3: whenever you are praying, what is actually going on? Like,
Speaker 3: get rid of the book and all this shit. I'm
Speaker 3: talking about your biology and what is going on in
Speaker 3: your mind? You are putting you are speaking, but you're
Speaker 3: putting yourself in almost a meditative state whenever you're doing it,
Speaker 3: even if it's just temporarily right, and so now you're
Speaker 3: manipulating your physical structure to resonate with the message that
Speaker 3: is going on in your mind.
Speaker 7: Right, I guess depends on how you pray. Honestly, when
Speaker 7: I pray, I'm not meditating, that's for sure.
Speaker 3: I mean, you pray before bed right.
Speaker 2: With my kids, because your eyes when you do it
Speaker 2: not usually.
Speaker 4: Really, yeah, I believe.
Speaker 7: I believe that when you pray, I'm literally just talking
Speaker 7: to God as I'm talking to you. I don't like, now,
Speaker 7: I'm not gonna start shitting on the Catholics who believe
Speaker 7: that when you do the Hail Mary, you do the
Speaker 7: repetitive thing over and over again, and like, yeah, for that,
Speaker 7: I see what you're saying. It's a little bit of
Speaker 7: some meditatim, a little bit of some transke state that
Speaker 7: you can get into from like a mantra or something
Speaker 7: like that. I'm with you, but uh, the type of
Speaker 7: faith that I have when I pray, it's not anything
Speaker 7: like that.
Speaker 3: That's interesting because most people, you know that most people
Speaker 3: will get down on their hands on their knees, they'll
Speaker 3: you know, put their hands like this, They'll close their
Speaker 3: eyes and they will try and get into the into
Speaker 3: the Holy Spirit. For lack of a better term, like
Speaker 3: you're trying to almost connect with whatever you're speaking to energetically.
Speaker 3: You don't do that.
Speaker 7: No, I believe the Holy Spirit's around us at all times.
Speaker 7: I don't have to like, you know, get myself in
Speaker 7: a certain position in order for him to hear me.
Speaker 4: That.
Speaker 2: That's just.
Speaker 6: I get what you're saying. Yeah, I mean I believe
Speaker 6: the same thing. It kind of goes along the lines of, like,
Speaker 6: you know, kind of what is your intent If you're
Speaker 6: just trying to talk to your God, right, you don't
Speaker 6: necessarily need a whole system you go through to be
Speaker 6: able to actually have that connection. If your intent is
Speaker 6: to actually talk to them themselves, right, Like you could
Speaker 6: literally just you know, be walking down the street and
Speaker 6: send out a prayer to him to have a just
Speaker 6: personal conversation, and that could actually have more of an
Speaker 6: effect than somebody that is just going through the motions
Speaker 6: and just saying words that they don't actually mean.
Speaker 3: Right. But whenever you actually go through the prayer or
Speaker 3: the ritual or whatever you're doing, you're not just doing
Speaker 3: it to be able to send out a message. You're
Speaker 3: also doing it at least you know, in my experience.
Speaker 3: You're doing it to clear out all the other clutter
Speaker 3: that is going on in your mind so that your
Speaker 3: message and your intent can be more direct, right.
Speaker 6: And that could be true, yes, And that's why we're
Speaker 6: told to go in private when we pray. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 6: you're not you're not necessarily supposed to be, you know,
Speaker 6: in the middle of a concert, and you know, just
Speaker 6: send it up a prayer, you can. There's not necessarily
Speaker 6: anything wrong with that. But if you're trying to have
Speaker 6: a meaningful conversation, do it in private.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 7: And then the other side of that is that prayer
Speaker 7: does not always work. As in people that pray and
Speaker 7: use God like he's a genie, right, and they believe
Speaker 7: that if they pray hard enough, then whatever they're praying
Speaker 7: for will just magically happen. Sometimes that does happen, but
Speaker 7: that is not a guarantee. It all depends on if
Speaker 7: it aligns with his plan. But that's a conversation that's
Speaker 7: a little more in depth than what we're talking about.
Speaker 3: That's the religious way of looking at it.
Speaker 2: But like I said, that's yeah.
Speaker 6: But I would say that your mind itself probably has
Speaker 6: more of an impact on the underlying field than what
Speaker 6: you think, because as you're having thought, your brain is
Speaker 6: sending off electromagnetic interactions which if they're strong enough, they
Speaker 6: indeed can interact with the field.
Speaker 2: And you're proving this with math and figures and science.
Speaker 6: The brain part not yet, that's not a part that
Speaker 6: I've dove into yet exactly. But as far as everything else, yes.
Speaker 3: My point about that is almost like you ever hear
Speaker 3: people say like, it's not what you said, it's how
Speaker 3: you said it, you know what I mean. It could
Speaker 3: be a little something like that, to where it's not
Speaker 3: necessarily how you're saying it, but like, you know what
Speaker 3: if you're in the middle of a prayer, but you
Speaker 3: got this other thing going on in the back of
Speaker 3: your mind, you know, like maybe you got the kids
Speaker 3: screaming in the back room, or you got a TV
Speaker 3: that's blaring on or radio from across the street, or
Speaker 3: something like that. The goal, I believe, at least as
Speaker 3: far as my understanding and to spirituality in a sense goes,
Speaker 3: is that you're trying to quiet the mind so that
Speaker 3: it feels like a more direct channel, not I don't
Speaker 3: want to use even the term channel, a direct access
Speaker 3: to whatever wherever God may exist in that realm. That's
Speaker 3: all I'm trying to say is, you know, we have
Speaker 3: sixty thousand thoughts in a day, dude, and if you
Speaker 3: don't lower that volume, that intent and that message is
Speaker 3: not going to it's going to be jumbled up.
Speaker 4: I think I wish I never heard that, because now
Speaker 4: I'm gonna start counting.
Speaker 3: On some real shit. I mean, you'll have to. You'll
Speaker 3: have thoughts on top of thoughts on top of thoughts.
Speaker 6: Right, And one thing I would say is when you
Speaker 6: really learn how the frequency of waves actually interact with
Speaker 6: different things, and how other frequencies can actually interact with those,
Speaker 6: and what everything altogether can actually you know, basically amount to,
Speaker 6: it actually gives credence to some of the claims that
Speaker 6: are given about you know, electromagnetic interference. So, for example,
Speaker 6: a lot of people don't know this, but Bluetooth is
Speaker 6: actually based off of Tesla's original you know, energy transfer design,
Speaker 6: based off of you know, wireless transmission, except so high
Speaker 6: frequency waves cannot carry energy, only information. Low frequency waves
Speaker 6: can carry energy, but not necessarily information. So literally the
Speaker 6: Bluetooth is a for the most part, micro version of
Speaker 6: what Tesla was trying to accomplish. What's interesting with that
Speaker 6: is when you understand that your body itself is based
Speaker 6: off of a bunch of things that are at different frequencies,
Speaker 6: that are at you know, basically in isolation. If you
Speaker 6: have high amplitude but also high frequency waves interacting with you,
Speaker 6: it could cause some bad things.
Speaker 4: To actually happen.
Speaker 6: So when we're talking about frequency, frequency itself is for
Speaker 6: the most part, the spacing in between the waves themselves.
Speaker 6: Amplitude is the difference in height and the height and
Speaker 6: the lowering of the trough right, So basically how high
Speaker 6: up it goes and how far down it goes. If you,
Speaker 6: higher frequencies can actually interact with smaller objects, lower frequencies
Speaker 6: interact with larger objects. If a high frequency wave basically
Speaker 6: hits you, it will interact with you, and it's got
Speaker 6: enough energy to basically, you know, have that interaction and
Speaker 6: it is modulated at the correct interval. It can cause
Speaker 6: altered like it can alter your DNA, it can alter
Speaker 6: your cells. It can alter your literally the atomic structure
Speaker 6: of everything inside of you. It can alter the brain
Speaker 6: waves that you're having in your mind, it can alter
Speaker 6: your thoughts, it can alter literally everything as long as
Speaker 6: the frequency itself is for the most part formed to
Speaker 6: make that interaction. So remember we just learned that even
Speaker 6: quantum itself states that waveform holds memory and it holds information.
Speaker 6: So when somebody says there's a possibility that they had
Speaker 6: thoughts put into their head, that is actually proven within
Speaker 6: quantum theory. And again, mine the amount of different interactions
Speaker 6: you can have going on can basically your environment has
Speaker 6: a constant impact on you. I mean, even so for example,
Speaker 6: one of the things that I hope to get into
Speaker 6: soon is you know, the DMT and refracted laser experiments.
Speaker 6: So what I'm one thing I'm gonna say about that
Speaker 6: is you should actually be seeing a full blown three
Speaker 6: dimensional seimatic with that, not just symbols, not just uh,
Speaker 6: fractals of letters and all that stuff. There's some kind
Speaker 6: of interaction that's going on around that, or it could
Speaker 6: be in an individual interaction, or it could be possibly
Speaker 6: you know, some kind of imprint onto the DMT itself
Speaker 6: that is causing basically something to go wrong and not
Speaker 6: go in the manner that it actually should. Anything can
Speaker 6: cause this. Literally, even if your TV remote is interacting
Speaker 6: with the TV at a frequency that will cause some
Speaker 6: kind of disturbance, it is going to interact with you.
Speaker 6: The claim that there's a possibility behind five G of
Speaker 6: having some kind of bad interaction with you, that's valid.
Speaker 4: That's all of it's valid. I mean, especially when we look.
Speaker 6: At the electromagnetic therapy that they're currently doing for like
Speaker 6: you know, mental illness, with depression, with anxiety, with all
Speaker 6: of that. When we look at the fact that when
Speaker 6: you go get surgery, you get laser treatment on the
Speaker 6: surface of like you know, where the incision was, because
Speaker 6: it promotes healing. At our base, we are literally energy
Speaker 6: that is modulating at a certain frequency. Everything that does
Speaker 6: that itself will have an interaction with you because you
Speaker 6: are actually no different, You're just a compressed version of it.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent agree. Interesting, Yeah, it makes a lot
Speaker 3: of sense.
Speaker 2: Though.
Speaker 3: It makes you wonder though, like how did and if
Speaker 3: we're let's just get all the way weird, how did so?
Speaker 6: Uh?
Speaker 3: At first, there was these little atoms and the quarks
Speaker 3: and everything like that, and some some of those atoms
Speaker 3: and energetic bubbles, I guess we'll call them morphed into
Speaker 3: something and some of them morphed into something else. Like
Speaker 3: what do you think would cause the distortion as far
Speaker 3: as creation would go.
Speaker 6: At that point, it is, in my opinion, underlying like stated,
Speaker 6: I am explicitly stating. Even the very beginning physicists of
Speaker 6: quantum stated this, and most of them disagreed with the
Speaker 6: probability aspect of like quantum, which at this point in
Speaker 6: time I've explained, so there's actually no probability behind it anymore.
Speaker 6: And this is why my model is, or my theory
Speaker 6: is deterministic. It's actually, I guess what you could consider
Speaker 6: hyper deterministic. But there is indeed a creator, and there
Speaker 6: is actually a underlying reason for every interaction that is
Speaker 6: going on. You were built in a certain way for
Speaker 6: a certain reason. And again it's explicitly stated in the
Speaker 6: fact that there is information and memory held within waveform.
Speaker 6: When we are just nothing but compressed waveform, we are
Speaker 6: just full of information and full of energy itself.
Speaker 3: You know what, I've actually come around to believing in creation.
Speaker 3: I used to think that maybe it just always existed,
Speaker 3: because that's hey, we never know, right, especially whenever you
Speaker 3: say that it happened billions and billions of years ago,
Speaker 3: It may may as well have just always existed, right.
Speaker 3: But as far as the creation goes, And the way
Speaker 3: I've kind of come across this is that, you know,
Speaker 3: I know a lot of people don't dream, but I
Speaker 3: dream pretty frequently, and in my dreams, I visit places
Speaker 3: that I've never been. I'm in, I'm in, you know,
Speaker 3: places that I've never been. I'm talking to people that
Speaker 3: I've never seen. I'm seeing animals that I never even
Speaker 3: would have thought of. I'm in situations that I never
Speaker 3: would have even thought of being in either. Right, But
Speaker 3: that world that in that dream, that that place was
Speaker 3: created by me, you know what I'm saying. Like it
Speaker 3: it didn't have to evolve over time, you know it.
Speaker 3: I don't know. That's just the way I kind of
Speaker 3: look at it. And I believe personally that we have
Speaker 3: a little piece of God inside of all of us.
Speaker 3: That's just how I look at it. I believe that
Speaker 3: there is no such thing as any kind of separation whatsoever.
Speaker 3: To say that we are separate from God, I believe
Speaker 3: is only putting God into a very small box, because
Speaker 3: I personally believe that God is literally everything that there
Speaker 3: isn't anything that isn't God. So if that's the case,
Speaker 3: then maybe our dreams are just a tiny little window
Speaker 3: as far as like our ability to create, because that's
Speaker 3: what we are, that's we're just little sparks of the whole,
Speaker 3: I guess, right, And just as you said earlier, like
Speaker 3: even the smallest little part is going to contain the hole.
Speaker 3: Like the micro matches the macro, and they're just smaller
Speaker 3: versions and bigger versions of the same thing.
Speaker 6: I saw the same thing, just stacking and stacking and
Speaker 6: stacking creating bulk effects, which it's all just held together
Speaker 6: by the same effects all the way to the macro.
Speaker 4: One thing.
Speaker 6: I would say, I one hundred percent agree with you
Speaker 6: and the fact that God is in everything it is
Speaker 6: in or he is in us. But one of the
Speaker 6: issues with like philosophical sayings and thinkings, right is it
Speaker 6: constantly ends in a paradox. You will always present a
Speaker 6: philosophical view and I can always come up with a
Speaker 6: paradoxal view against it. And it's kind of like the
Speaker 6: conversation of the chicken in the egg or the did
Speaker 6: the did the universe always exist or was it actually created?
Speaker 6: How does that whole time loop work? When philosophically speaking,
Speaker 6: there's always going to be a paradox that is able
Speaker 6: to be like introduced. Yeah, one thing I would say
Speaker 6: is even though and I know there are certain groups
Speaker 6: that that go against this, and they have their own
Speaker 6: sayings and whatever with this, but even if God is
Speaker 6: in us and is in everything and is everywhere, that
Speaker 6: does not mean that the individual.
Speaker 4: Does not exist. Yeah, of course it's not argue against that.
Speaker 7: Right there means that there is separation between the creator
Speaker 7: and the created.
Speaker 6: Correct with So like, even though yes, we have a
Speaker 6: part of the creator.
Speaker 4: We are part of the Creator.
Speaker 6: Everything you see is part and has the Creator in it,
Speaker 6: that does not mean that the Creator itself is not
Speaker 6: an individual.
Speaker 7: It'd be the same as having a You have a kid, right,
Speaker 7: your child has you within them. Literally half of their
Speaker 7: DNA came from you. But that would put you as
Speaker 7: in some way, shape or form a portion of the Creator.
Speaker 7: In that conversation, your child is a completely separate entity
Speaker 7: from you.
Speaker 3: Though, I feel like you got to look at it
Speaker 3: not only from a physical perspective.
Speaker 7: So I'm saying spiritually everything. Even spiritually speaking, yeah, we
Speaker 7: might have like the spark of God within us.
Speaker 2: We might call that a soul.
Speaker 7: You might call that like, yeah, put your titles on
Speaker 7: that all you want, But at the same time, that
Speaker 7: would be the mark of the Creator, not a fraction
Speaker 7: of the essence of the Creator.
Speaker 2: To this a separation there.
Speaker 3: Sure. What I'm saying is is that I I, whenever I,
Speaker 3: whenever I say we or I or you, I'm not
Speaker 3: talking about our meat suits like that is our soul.
Speaker 3: I'm talking about who like our essence is of God.
Speaker 3: Is what I'm saying, is of God, but is not
Speaker 3: actually God.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm saying.
Speaker 7: No, the DNA within your child, that's that is of you. No,
Speaker 7: that is a half of your DNA strand one hundred percent.
Speaker 7: But your child is not you.
Speaker 3: No, no, no, no no. What I'm saying is is
Speaker 3: the same adage as you know, the a drop in
Speaker 3: the ocean and the ocean and a drop. What I'm
Speaker 3: saying is is that I believe that we are all
Speaker 3: micro versions of one thing.
Speaker 7: Okay, let's use that the ocean, the ocean itself, massive
Speaker 7: body of water. If I take a cup and I
Speaker 7: scoop out a cup full of the ocean, name your
Speaker 7: ocean doesn't matter. And then I go to Kansas, I
Speaker 7: don't have the ocean with me. I have a cup
Speaker 7: of seawater, But it's not a part of the Atlantic
Speaker 7: Ocean that I brought home. Once you separate, it becomes
Speaker 7: its own thing.
Speaker 3: But all.
Speaker 6: Ocean, well, the structure and the makeup of that water
Speaker 6: will actually tell you where exactly it came from.
Speaker 7: Yes, but the cup of water, I did not bring
Speaker 7: a cup of the Atlantic Ocean with me. That's my point.
Speaker 7: There is a separation at that time. There's markers that
Speaker 7: will show you where it came from one hundred percent.
Speaker 7: The same way with like I said, a physical example,
Speaker 7: with your child, there is markers that will show who
Speaker 7: the parents are of this child one hundred percent. But
Speaker 7: that child is a separate entity from the parents. Our
Speaker 7: souls are a separate entity from God, even though it
Speaker 7: was created by God.
Speaker 3: Why are you trying to prove separation from God? Is
Speaker 3: my question.
Speaker 7: Well, I'm saying that, like, yeah, God is a separate
Speaker 7: entity from us. That's that's how that goes in my
Speaker 7: personal opinion. I'm not saying that we may not have
Speaker 7: the spirit of God within all of us in some way,
Speaker 7: shape or form. But also when you look at the translations,
Speaker 7: spirit also means breath, which could be interpreted to being
Speaker 7: life or soul. That's not to say that, like, you know,
Speaker 7: God is you know, like you're saying, everything is everything
Speaker 7: in existence is God. And I'm with you on that
Speaker 7: God created everything. But that does not mean that a
Speaker 7: blade of grass is God, the squirrel is God?
Speaker 3: Is God? How is it? How is he not? All
Speaker 3: of these things you're saying. What I'm trying to say
Speaker 3: is is that God is everything. You're trying to show
Speaker 3: all the ways in which He's not.
Speaker 6: So here here we'll go back to the because again
Speaker 6: we've established that waveform holds memory and information. Right, so
Speaker 6: when you speak, you have released words that have for
Speaker 6: the most part, your information and your identity in it.
Speaker 6: But that sound wave itself is its own thing and
Speaker 6: it will go and do its own things.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: So again back to the whole idea of let there
Speaker 6: be light, that was literally the same situation, and the
Speaker 6: whole saying of the word made flesh is literally a
Speaker 6: basically an explanation of the micro to the macro. At
Speaker 6: that point in time, the word, which was the energetic waveform,
Speaker 6: eventually compressed into physical form.
Speaker 5: Interesting, a lot of people talk about our existence is
Speaker 5: actually being folded light, So we're like compressed folded light.
Speaker 5: And so what I think Luke has been able to
Speaker 5: show with equations using these first principles is that light
Speaker 5: isn't random, it's just not like shooting out randomly, but
Speaker 5: that it's divine and deterministic.
Speaker 4: Yeah right, there's no entire reason for it.
Speaker 6: And so everything is the same version of everything else,
Speaker 6: but with these different values.
Speaker 4: And this is.
Speaker 6: How the whole evolution of the basically energy as a
Speaker 6: whole goes, and it continues that same pattern, such as,
Speaker 6: for example, to all encompass what y'all were talking about,
Speaker 6: sending out that you know, own form of your energy
Speaker 6: that has identification, that has memory, that has a whole
Speaker 6: reason and a point, and it is of you, but
Speaker 6: it itself is its own thing.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's the same principles.
Speaker 6: So saying that everything is God is correct at the
Speaker 6: same time as saying that this individual is indeed an individual,
Speaker 6: but that grass holds the basically the information from that individual.
Speaker 3: I'll put it to you like this, we look at
Speaker 3: ourselves as this is me, right, but we know that
Speaker 3: this is a disposable right, like this is a disposable
Speaker 3: fucking meat suit that we're wearing. But so by saying
Speaker 3: that you are just your body is a limitation in
Speaker 3: and of itself, wouldn't you agree?
Speaker 2: I mean sure, yeah.
Speaker 3: So that's what I'm saying. It's like looking at ourselves
Speaker 3: almost like through I don't know. I'm trying to figure
Speaker 3: out in ways that I can help you understand, like
Speaker 3: my process of.
Speaker 7: Thinking, I understand your process. But we you and I
Speaker 7: have a fundamental disagreement on this one. That's that's what
Speaker 7: this boils down to it. So we have a different perspective, okay, right,
Speaker 7: the same way that, like Luke said, whenever you say something,
Speaker 7: you speak, you blow an airhorn, whatever the case is.
Speaker 2: You create sound waves with that energy.
Speaker 7: And yes, you can take a recording of that and
Speaker 7: put it through a computer modulator and it could tell
Speaker 7: you who said this these words, right, it can.
Speaker 2: You can run through a matrix and you could.
Speaker 7: Tell the identifying markers of that soundwave energy to tell
Speaker 7: where it came from. But those sound waves are not
Speaker 7: a portion of you. They came from you, but they
Speaker 7: are not you.
Speaker 3: Sure I'm the one that set them in motion though.
Speaker 2: Yes, one hundred percent.
Speaker 7: But once those soundwaves go and they reverberate off the
Speaker 7: wall and they get picked up by a microphone or
Speaker 7: whatever else that is not like a portion of you
Speaker 7: within those sound waves.
Speaker 2: You can tell where it came from one hundred percent.
Speaker 7: You're the one that said them with you, one hundred percent,
Speaker 7: But those sound waves are not a.
Speaker 2: Portion of you in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 6: So I was meaning to bring this up because this
Speaker 6: is actually I just realized, how, I guess relevant.
Speaker 4: This entire conversation goes to this point.
Speaker 6: So one of the things that I did want to
Speaker 6: look into because I'm kind of starting to dive into
Speaker 6: the whole medical aspect of everything. I mean, I did
Speaker 6: a dive in the beginning, but this is more of
Speaker 6: a deep dive. I guess you could say. I wanted
Speaker 6: to actually look into the fact of how when you know,
Speaker 6: children are born, they do inherent cells that are actually
Speaker 6: from the parent, and there are accounts of you know,
Speaker 6: feelings being shared through that and honestly, like pain happening
Speaker 6: because of those interact or because of that share. What's
Speaker 6: interesting is what y'all are talking about, and actually that
Speaker 6: as well is for the most part, very similar how
Speaker 6: I explain Bell's theorem or how entanglement actually works. So
Speaker 6: two particles can actually have the same interaction because of
Speaker 6: a shared for the most part information between the two,
Speaker 6: so they don't actually have a real connection, but because
Speaker 6: the information is actually encoded in there, they will have
Speaker 6: similar actions going on at the same time. And this
Speaker 6: kind of relates to how, for example, a creator can
Speaker 6: be its own individual and also be part of what
Speaker 6: it created, and also how a parent can have a
Speaker 6: child and also share a certain degree of information or signature.
Speaker 6: At a cellular level, it's for the most part, the
Speaker 6: same exact thing, just different forms of it, which again
Speaker 6: everything is just compressed waveforms, so it's all the same,
Speaker 6: just different sizes.
Speaker 5: I have a question, how would you separate, compare, and
Speaker 5: contrast define the difference between God and the divine life
Speaker 5: giving energy that we measure coming from the Sun. And
Speaker 5: I'm asking that in the context of how other em
Speaker 5: theorists will talk about counter space and how the Sun
Speaker 5: is getting its energy from another realm. So I know
Speaker 5: that you have a different view. How would you describe
Speaker 5: the divine life giving, dynamic, purposeful energy from quote unquote
Speaker 5: God compared to what we're seeing and measuring and this
Speaker 5: luminary that we call the sun.
Speaker 6: So in waveform, whether we're talking about the one or
Speaker 6: two dimensional regular waveform that we know, or the three
Speaker 6: or four dimensional that I'm talking about. It still carries information,
Speaker 6: it still carries memory, it still carries a certain frequency
Speaker 6: that is really it which has other interactions with you know, say,
Speaker 6: for example, grass or just humans in general. Because we
Speaker 6: know we need sunlight, right, that means that there is
Speaker 6: actually a communication between our bodies and the light that
Speaker 6: we are receiving to where that light knows that we
Speaker 6: need it and our body knows that we need it.
Speaker 6: This is for the most part, encoded within the word
Speaker 6: that became physical, and it's just original information that was
Speaker 6: encoded into that energy to begin with.
Speaker 7: I mean it certifiably, you will fall into a state
Speaker 7: of depression if you go six months without sunlight, right
Speaker 7: that is, and that's not just the way your brain perceived, no, no, no,
Speaker 7: Like physically, your body requires sunlight.
Speaker 2: In order to if I remember that, fucking right, yeah.
Speaker 7: And that's why you'll have guys that will be on
Speaker 7: like nuclear submarines and they'll be under the water for
Speaker 7: six months. Suicide rates and depression are through the fucking
Speaker 7: roof when they surface again. Because we as human beings
Speaker 7: were not designed to go that long without sunlight. That's
Speaker 7: that's just not the way.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, I I can tell you so I
Speaker 6: used to build those, and I can tell you that
Speaker 6: being inside of those it is a big psychological impact,
Speaker 6: let alone the fact that you're actually under water. So
Speaker 6: for example, the submarines that I built were thirty six
Speaker 6: feet wide. When they reached their typical depth, they would
Speaker 6: shrink a foot on each side.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's.
Speaker 6: An entire psychological thing. Yeah, absolutely, But then also rose
Speaker 6: to your point.
Speaker 7: That's also why I believe that it makes a lot
Speaker 7: of sense that so many tribes, so many cultures, so
Speaker 7: many civilizations the world over throughout the course of human
Speaker 7: history have worshiped the Sun as a deity as a lifegiver.
Speaker 7: Because if you really break it down, just if A
Speaker 7: plus B E, we'll see here, without the sun, there
Speaker 7: is no plants, there is no animals to eat the plants,
Speaker 7: and the humans that eat the plants and animals can't thrive.
Speaker 7: So it's it would make sense that they would worship
Speaker 7: the sun as a life giving source, right, And that's
Speaker 7: why we have so many pantheons that have a deity
Speaker 7: assigned as the Sun God.
Speaker 5: Right, But what's really going on is that it's a converter.
Speaker 5: It's converting the energy from whatever is causing this place
Speaker 5: right right.
Speaker 7: And I don't believe that the sun is God or
Speaker 7: a god or anything like that, but I'm just saying
Speaker 7: that I understand why mankind, for a giant chunk of
Speaker 7: our existence, has viewed the Sun in some sort of
Speaker 7: a way as a source of life giving, you know,
Speaker 7: for nourishment, for your own mental health and physical health,
Speaker 7: all these That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 2: But the God that.
Speaker 7: I worship supersedes all of that, right, he is the
Speaker 7: one that created all of it. It's kind of like saying, Uh,
Speaker 7: what is a computer program as opposed to the programmer?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 7: It's the program itself can run in all these phenomenal ways,
Speaker 7: but it's nothing as compared to the programmer that literally
Speaker 7: created it.
Speaker 5: I totally agree with you. I agree with you one
Speaker 5: hundred percent, and that even on the virtual particle scale
Speaker 5: that we started out with, that those initial emission pressure waves,
Speaker 5: it's all purposeful from a creator instead of it just
Speaker 5: being random. And it just so happens that we all
Speaker 5: come together into mass and have these special individual personalities.
Speaker 5: So yeah, I think that every aspect of what makes
Speaker 5: reality exist is from that light that comes through, however
Speaker 5: it comes through. We see a scent in the sky,
Speaker 5: but that's just like part of the clock, you know,
Speaker 5: part of the mechanics of how everything works. That's how
Speaker 5: I see it.
Speaker 7: The random ightes for lack of better words, the people
Speaker 7: out there that believe then you know, the h the
Speaker 7: atheistic approach to how everything started, evolution, all the things
Speaker 7: to get us to this point. It makes no sense
Speaker 7: to me. I understand why they're trying to scientifically, or
Speaker 7: in their version of scientifically, explain how we came to existence.
Speaker 7: But there are so many like statistically, there is not
Speaker 7: even like a snowballs chance. In hell, there's not even
Speaker 7: like a one in a billion chants. There's like, I think,
Speaker 7: a one in four trillion shot of a child being born.
Speaker 7: Just saying that, just in the in the very basics
Speaker 7: of nothing going wrong during the actual sexual intercourse, it created,
Speaker 7: the sperm actually meeting the egg, the egg actually implanting
Speaker 7: to the side of the wall of the womb, it
Speaker 7: being a viable womb, the mother carrying it through to fruition,
Speaker 7: all the things like the real statistics to having a
Speaker 7: child be born that I use the example with Jonathan.
Speaker 2: If I gave you this gun and.
Speaker 7: I told you that you had a one in four
Speaker 7: a trillion shot of it firing every time you pulled
Speaker 7: the trigger, you would not say there's a functional weapon.
Speaker 7: You would say, this is a paperweight that might have
Speaker 7: a magic trick once every eon.
Speaker 2: Right, that that's about it. That's not a statistic. That's
Speaker 2: emphallically incorrect.
Speaker 7: So the people that act like existence is all, you know,
Speaker 7: the result of so many random things just magically falling
Speaker 7: in line at the same time.
Speaker 2: That has never made sense to me.
Speaker 7: And I mean even looking at it away from religion,
Speaker 7: looking at it just scientifically and mathematically, that's beyond scope
Speaker 7: for me.
Speaker 6: So one of the one of the examples that I
Speaker 6: like the most about how being just anti religion, just
Speaker 6: not believing in a creator or anything like that is
Speaker 6: not actually possible. And it has nothing to do with
Speaker 6: the gad gene. It actually has to do with a
Speaker 6: level of intelligence. So for anybody out there that is atheistic,
Speaker 6: I'm not saying anything, I'm not implying anything. I'm just
Speaker 6: showing the example of what this doctor laid out right.
Speaker 6: So if you draw a circle right, and inside of
Speaker 6: that circle is the knowledge of all of the past
Speaker 6: and all of the future. If you draw a line
Speaker 6: somewhere in there of what your knowledge actually is, if
Speaker 6: it does not contain the entire circle, you are not
Speaker 6: smart enough to say that there is not a god
Speaker 6: so being. And the fact that nobody's ever been as
Speaker 6: smart because obviously nobody's going to live all the way
Speaker 6: from beginning to end, at least as a regular person.
Speaker 6: It is actually impossible to be an atheist. So you
Speaker 6: can say you're agnostic, sure, but you actually scientifically cannot
Speaker 6: be atheists.
Speaker 2: I saw a pastor actually give that talk one time.
Speaker 7: He was brought to a board some panel to speak
Speaker 7: on behalf of this, and he was going to debate
Speaker 7: an atheist, and they said, your job is to try
Speaker 7: to convert him from being atheists. He's like, wait, do
Speaker 7: I have to convert him to Christianity or do I
Speaker 7: just have to get him off of his atheistic stance?
Speaker 2: And like, just got to.
Speaker 7: Get him off atheism, and uh, you know you're gonna
Speaker 7: have five minutes to do it.
Speaker 2: He's like, I only need like thirty seconds. But Okay,
Speaker 2: that's not a problem.
Speaker 7: The atheist had like fifteen minutes to just dismantle every
Speaker 7: single thing about how this is all for nothing and
Speaker 7: his atheism a theism and atheism. He did literally that example,
Speaker 7: and he showed him. He's like, how much of this
Speaker 7: circle do you think you know? He I think he
Speaker 7: colored in like a tenth of it, right, He's like,
Speaker 7: going me wrong. And that's also pretty impressive if you
Speaker 7: are somebody who is that knowledgeable that you really believe
Speaker 7: that you have ten percent of all knowledge of all
Speaker 7: existence period in your brain.
Speaker 2: Right now. I'm not saying that's egoic.
Speaker 7: I don't know everybody's education levels things, but like that's impressive.
Speaker 7: And he's like, so you're telling me, in the other
Speaker 7: ninety percent of the circle there is no shot that
Speaker 7: there is a creator. He's like, well, I guess there's
Speaker 7: a chance. Like, congratulations, you are now agnostic and one
Speaker 7: step closer.
Speaker 2: To knowing my God.
Speaker 4: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 6: And it's so like I like examples like that, but
Speaker 6: for example, with your coding example earlier, this is as
Speaker 6: much as I don't like using it because I know
Speaker 6: some people might take this as the fact that we're
Speaker 6: in a simulation or matrix or whatever and define the
Speaker 6: difference between a computer matrix and a organic matrix. To me, honestly,
Speaker 6: that there's not an actual difference, and we're never gonna
Speaker 6: be able to know, Like, for example, it there's no
Speaker 6: difference between the creator laying it out like exactly how
Speaker 6: it is in the Bible, exactly how it is in
Speaker 6: this religious book, this one, this one, whatever. When you
Speaker 6: know information is held with and energy, that there's no difference,
Speaker 6: that's the whole reason why things can be broken down
Speaker 6: to zeros and once. But for the coding example, this
Speaker 6: is actually how I like to describe how subconscious, conscious
Speaker 6: and free will actually works. So, for example, a lot
Speaker 6: of people that don't know a lot about coding, if
Speaker 6: you write a code that you want like to be performed,
Speaker 6: typically at the end there will be a section that
Speaker 6: outlines a procedure to go back through and make sure
Speaker 6: that it was done exactly before you go to the
Speaker 6: next step. That is subconscious. So for example, everybody that
Speaker 6: is listening, you are breathing without knowing it, and I'm
Speaker 6: sorry for the fact that you now have to focus
Speaker 6: on the fact that you're breathing.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry but fine, But.
Speaker 7: That heart is beating. Your heart is beating right now
Speaker 7: without you having to tell it to do so. That
Speaker 7: is a subconscious thing that you're Your body is doing,
Speaker 7: free and clear of your brain whatsoever. Well, now, free
Speaker 7: and clear of your brain. Your brain's still controlling it,
Speaker 7: but not your mind.
Speaker 4: Right exactly.
Speaker 6: There is a inherent coding that is being performed and
Speaker 6: continuously checked in the background without you noticing.
Speaker 4: That is subconscious. Now.
Speaker 6: Whenever we get to actual consciousness, that itself, I would say,
Speaker 6: is free will. That is, so you can stop yourself
Speaker 6: from breathing right now, you can skip that check inside
Speaker 6: of the coding to go to the next step. This
Speaker 6: is free will, and this is what we observe as consciousness.
Speaker 6: They are actually both the same thing. You can't necessarily
Speaker 6: have consciousness without free will.
Speaker 2: Right, And I like that example.
Speaker 7: I've used that example a good bit when talking about
Speaker 7: like animals, for instance, right the conversation of if animals
Speaker 7: have a soul, And I'm not saying that they do
Speaker 7: or don't, To be honest with you, my religious text
Speaker 7: never really weighs in on it heavily. But I am
Speaker 7: of belief personally that animals operate in a more or
Speaker 7: less uh not feral.
Speaker 6: State, buttes subconscious would realistically be the same thing, I.
Speaker 7: Would think, so right now, that's not to say that
Speaker 7: you can't train an animal to do what you're asking
Speaker 7: it to do, right There's tons of examples of this,
Speaker 7: but that doesn't negate how and why they act the
Speaker 7: way they do when left to their own devices. It
Speaker 7: goes completely into the realm of instinct driven and subconscious driven. Right,
Speaker 7: So then that goes into the conversation of well, what
Speaker 7: happens if they are conscious beings? But that's the thing,
Speaker 7: we have no evidence anywhere to show that a animal
Speaker 7: thinks of things like that as far as like, well,
Speaker 7: I guess to use your example, like to stop itself
Speaker 7: from breathing, like just to do it, just to prove
Speaker 7: that point.
Speaker 2: That's that's not something that happens. Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 5: I mean myself go crazy when wondering if my cat
Speaker 5: actually loves me or if I just trained it with treats,
Speaker 5: And you have these moments where it's like, my cat
Speaker 5: really does love me, and so it makes you wonder
Speaker 5: if there's like a baseline to their existence that's extinctual.
Speaker 5: But then maybe a bond with a human awakens something
Speaker 5: to their consciousness, not making them up to a human level,
Speaker 5: but just expanding their minds. I hope to love stacked.
Speaker 2: There's chemical reasons for that, right.
Speaker 7: There are a few breeds of animals where it actually
Speaker 7: you give each other serotonin with physical contact.
Speaker 2: Cats are one of them. Dogs are one of them,
Speaker 2: Horses are one of them.
Speaker 7: It's not like every single animal on earth, but there
Speaker 7: is a real connection because cats and humans. And this
Speaker 7: is where we get to where I believe evolution is
Speaker 7: a thing. I don't believe in evolution as far as
Speaker 7: going from a monkey to a human or anything like that.
Speaker 2: That sounds crazy to me.
Speaker 7: But to say that, over the course of the last
Speaker 7: ten thousand years, domestication of certain animals and living in
Speaker 7: such close proximity with animals has in fact altered our
Speaker 7: DNA to be more susceptible to them and them to us. Right,
Speaker 7: that makes perfect sense to me. So to that point,
Speaker 7: does your cat really love you? It's very possible. Is
Speaker 7: it also possible that it's because you train it with
Speaker 7: treats and it knows that if it comes up and
Speaker 7: loves on you that you're gonna give more treats.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's possible too.
Speaker 7: But chemically speaking, your cat rubbing up on you releases
Speaker 7: serotonin within your cat and subconsciously release a serotonin within
Speaker 7: your brain too.
Speaker 2: So there's a lot of X factor to be said
Speaker 2: for that for sure.
Speaker 5: Sorry, Luke, I interrupted you. I feel like we didn't
Speaker 5: get to finish even all the animations that you wanted
Speaker 5: to show for your particle Zoo presentation, and I ruined
Speaker 5: it by bringing up the Pyramids.
Speaker 4: No you get, I mean, no, this is so.
Speaker 6: This is one of my favorite things about this theory
Speaker 6: is if it is truly unifying, then I mean we're
Speaker 6: literally talking about wu wuo spirituality. Whatever can for the
Speaker 6: most part have its own branch of physics. Like that's
Speaker 6: a realistic thing that could happen. Now, again, it might
Speaker 6: be after I'm dead and gone, but it's there because again,
Speaker 6: even standard science as of right now acknowledges that there
Speaker 6: is a field that has for the most part a
Speaker 6: subconscious aspect to it, and it knows what's going on,
Speaker 6: and it receives information based off of what's going on,
Speaker 6: and it transfers for the most part that memory or
Speaker 6: information wherever it's supposed to be going or wherever it
Speaker 6: needs to go or whatever, based off of whatever interactions
Speaker 6: are actually going on themselves.
Speaker 4: A lot of so like if you look throughout.
Speaker 6: History, a lot of physicists, especially way back in the day,
Speaker 6: for the most part, they were all god believing individuals. Yeah,
Speaker 6: where the even what's his name, uh Darwin, the evolution guy, Yeah,
Speaker 6: constant quotes about you know, obviously there's a creator. All
Speaker 6: of this is for a reason, all of this we're
Speaker 6: talking about the guy that you know, basically built up
Speaker 6: evolution theory, even him just completely outright stating at where
Speaker 6: we get the disconnect is actually probably about around the
Speaker 6: first now probably about the second or third generation of
Speaker 6: quantum physicists to where we really start getting deep into
Speaker 6: probability calculations. So because again this theory gets rid of
Speaker 6: the entire idea of probability and shows the underlying actions
Speaker 6: that are going on. Nothing is based off of probability,
Speaker 6: nothing is based off of chance anymore. Everything has a
Speaker 6: reason and as to why it is doing exactly what
Speaker 6: it's doing, and you can trace it all the way
Speaker 6: from here where we're sitting right now, past the quantum
Speaker 6: level to literally you know, vortex models to what I'm
Speaker 6: outlining entirely here, all the way back to the field itself,
Speaker 6: and then back to the creator itself.
Speaker 2: I think you're on to some with that one, too.
Speaker 7: Right, So, the most brilliant minds of the vast majority
Speaker 7: of human existence were also deeply religious individuals. Right, it's
Speaker 7: only in the past, I wouldn't even say the last century.
Speaker 7: It's only been the past few decades where that has
Speaker 7: started to shift the opposite direction. And the reason is because,
Speaker 7: like you said, it's about how right versus the why.
Speaker 7: So many people, so many educated scholars from back in
Speaker 7: the day, would use religion to answer the question as
Speaker 7: to the why, but used science to answer the question
Speaker 7: as to the how right. And they were very they
Speaker 7: were good with that. They why does this have to
Speaker 7: be this way? Okay, because of this, but here's how
Speaker 7: that works?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 7: That was what turned the mental gears. Somewhere along the way,
Speaker 7: they started blending and more or less mislabeling the two.
Speaker 7: And now we're in this place where they're going out
Speaker 7: of the way to try to disprove a creator, even
Speaker 7: though all of their research moreover handover fist proves a creator.
Speaker 7: And that makes them double and triple down to try
Speaker 7: to undo that and prove what, well, that wasn't true
Speaker 7: because dot dot dot. And it's like, hold on, homie,
Speaker 7: you're kind of missing the point here, right.
Speaker 6: It seems like every time we make a new advancement,
Speaker 6: every time we look in a different area, no matter
Speaker 6: where we look, always in the corner there is a
Speaker 6: signature and it cannot be ignored. I mean, I'm straight
Speaker 6: up not gonna ignore it. I'm not I'm not gonna
Speaker 6: do that. And it's very interesting to see like what
Speaker 6: I would call like the first generation of modern day physicists, right,
Speaker 6: I mean, I'm talking about, for example, Einstein. A lot
Speaker 6: of people don't know it, but he was indeed a
Speaker 6: God fearing individual. He has constant quotes about God creating,
Speaker 6: about how all of this shows his you know, basic work,
Speaker 6: his creation all of that, and.
Speaker 7: Careful they'll start talking positive about the Jews and they'll
Speaker 7: come after you too.
Speaker 2: Brother.
Speaker 6: He absolutely even though he used it, he absolutely despised
Speaker 6: the probabilistic implications of where quantum was going. Even when
Speaker 6: we go to for example, Schrodinger, which you could easily
Speaker 6: say that he is the father of modern quantum. Sure,
Speaker 6: he himself absolutely despised the idea of probability, and he
Speaker 6: did for the most part, he tried to absolutely avoid it.
Speaker 6: I mean, he would go where the math led, but
Speaker 6: for the most part he didn't want to do it.
Speaker 6: And it was just kind of the other individuals, you know,
Speaker 6: involved with like the Copenhagen interpretation and stuff like that,
Speaker 6: they kind of, you know, kept pushing it along. But
Speaker 6: it seems like after that generation, that's whenever we really
Speaker 6: start getting into all right, let's just do this loop correction,
Speaker 6: loop correction, loop correction, Let's just make the math work
Speaker 6: instead of figuring out the actual underlying interactions that are happening.
Speaker 6: I mean, given at that point in time, it was
Speaker 6: just math. At that point in time, you know, the
Speaker 6: whole idea of Maxwell's quaterniatic work was completely spread out.
Speaker 6: So I mean, really nobody there wasn't enough advancements at
Speaker 6: that time to really justify going back and looking to
Speaker 6: see like what did we really miss? Now is that time,
Speaker 6: there's enough information out there to where we can see,
Speaker 6: for the most part what's going on, So what did
Speaker 6: we actually miss that made us feel like there is
Speaker 6: a probability tied to things? Instead of a accountable action
Speaker 6: for everything going on.
Speaker 7: Yeah, especially with today, with the information that we have,
Speaker 7: Like you said, right, we are in the day and
Speaker 7: age where anything you want to look up is a
Speaker 7: few fingertaps away, right, And of course we need to
Speaker 7: stay away from the AI chat models and things to
Speaker 7: find truth because there's so many times where they are
Speaker 7: found to be incorrect, but even using them as like
Speaker 7: a basis right to start the conversation.
Speaker 2: And to do more digging.
Speaker 7: Even we have all of this information at our disposal
Speaker 7: right now, but we still don't know every single thing.
Speaker 7: There's new discoveries being made every day, there's new advancements
Speaker 7: being made every day, And yeah, you're absolutely right.
Speaker 2: We are in some very very.
Speaker 7: Wild times unlike anything ever seen throughout the course of
Speaker 7: human history.
Speaker 6: Man like, And this is where I would I would
Speaker 6: definitely say that if there was, like, if there was
Speaker 6: something we missed, there has to be And I'm not
Speaker 6: going to say it's me, I'm not going to say
Speaker 6: it's anybody. It's just whoever it is that does it.
Speaker 6: If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But if there is
Speaker 6: a spot that was missed, if there was something that
Speaker 6: was just not accounted, for if there was a mistake
Speaker 6: in the past that caused all of this to actually
Speaker 6: play out the way it did, and at this point
Speaker 6: in time, we're just doing corrections instead of actual calculations.
Speaker 6: It is definitely going to have to be from somebody
Speaker 6: that is outside of the system to show it, to
Speaker 6: show where the actual issue is. So you know, if
Speaker 6: somebody actually produces it and they don't have any kind
Speaker 6: of actual accreditation or you know, even a degree whatever,
Speaker 6: if they're right, they're right. I mean there's no way
Speaker 6: to get around that. We've gone how many thousands of
Speaker 6: years advancing with individuals that had no realistic schooling. I mean,
Speaker 6: it doesn't necessarily matter if you actually have the the
Speaker 6: paper behind you that says you completed all these courses.
Speaker 6: Memory does not dictate intellect. I mean you could literally
Speaker 6: have somebody that could walk into any quantum class in
Speaker 6: no matter the amount of difficulty of that class, and
Speaker 6: they can literally just pick it up right then and there.
Speaker 4: I mean, that's actual intellect.
Speaker 6: I mean they can walk in and pick up anything
Speaker 6: that's presented in front of them.
Speaker 7: But see that you said memory does not equal intellect, right,
Speaker 7: you get somebody that goes into a lecture about quantum mechanics,
Speaker 7: and let's say that they have such a good steel
Speaker 7: cage of a memory bank that they're able to come
Speaker 7: out and probably be able to give the lecture back
Speaker 7: to you word for word. That does not mean they
Speaker 7: understand anything that they're talking about, but they can regurgitate
Speaker 7: the information just like it was presented to them. That
Speaker 7: is something that I feel like a lot of people
Speaker 7: mistake for intellect, but that is not the same thing.
Speaker 7: It's like, I can I can read you an owner's
Speaker 7: manual of a car, but unless I understand internal combustion
Speaker 7: at its principle, then I'm not giving you a actual
Speaker 7: education on it.
Speaker 2: I'm giving you a synopsis exactly.
Speaker 4: I mean.
Speaker 6: That's why a lot of it, I think a lot
Speaker 6: of the reason why it has to come from body,
Speaker 6: from somebody on the outside. I mean, it's it's more
Speaker 6: than just because of funding reasons. It's more than just
Speaker 6: because of reputation reasons.
Speaker 4: It is.
Speaker 6: It has a lot to do with I'm not going
Speaker 6: to say a programming on this is the correct way,
Speaker 6: this is the only way to keep going forward. It's
Speaker 6: just it needs to be an individual that is not
Speaker 6: only intelligent but also creative. You know, if we're stuck
Speaker 6: in this for the past fifty sixty years, obviously somebody
Speaker 6: has to think outside of the box.
Speaker 7: I mean, even within the scientific community there. I'm not
Speaker 7: gonna say gatekeepers, although there is that too, no.
Speaker 4: Doubt, I will not deny.
Speaker 6: I'm not gonna say that we got here because of
Speaker 6: institutional reasons or gatekeeping or anything like that. Yes it
Speaker 6: goes on, and yes it plays a major factor. But
Speaker 6: we've advanced for thousands of years and we for the
Speaker 6: most part, will continue.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: You're not gonna be able to stop that from happening,
Speaker 6: especially at this point in time with the ease and
Speaker 6: freedom of information.
Speaker 7: It's just like what they just discovered on Mars. And
Speaker 7: I know that a lot of people are gonna say
Speaker 7: that they don't believe that we've been to Mars or
Speaker 7: the rover whatever.
Speaker 2: Just bear with me here.
Speaker 7: The Mars rover last year discovered signs of life on Mars.
Speaker 7: Now it is microbial life at that right, there are
Speaker 7: certain identifying markers that, at least on Earth could not
Speaker 7: exist unless there was some type of microbial life that
Speaker 7: created these telltale signs.
Speaker 2: Right. They discovered it a year ago.
Speaker 7: They're only now talking about it right now, And no
Speaker 7: scientist or academic is willing to put their name on
Speaker 7: it to say I believe that there is at one
Speaker 7: point was life on Mars. Nobody is willing to do
Speaker 7: that because they are afraid of being seen as a
Speaker 7: kook by their own community, even though all the quantifiable
Speaker 7: evidence would suggest so, and somebody could be that pioneer
Speaker 7: to actually stake their claim and say yes, I believe
Speaker 7: it and let's run on that. They are terrified of
Speaker 7: how they'll be viewed by their peers to even really
Speaker 7: put any weight behind it.
Speaker 2: Now, let's take it to the realm that you're talking about.
Speaker 6: Oh my god, Yeah, I mean it's we're talking about
Speaker 6: something that is definitely a double edged sword. So for example,
Speaker 6: in that situation, nobody wants to save that claim in case.
Speaker 4: They are wrong.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: Meanwhile, we have a situation to where you know, a actual,
Speaker 6: very accredited individual is making comments about a object flying
Speaker 6: through space that is making weird patterns and putting off
Speaker 6: weird spectral lines and claiming that it is some kind
Speaker 6: of intelligent object whatever you want to consider it. Yeah, meanwhile,
Speaker 6: literally everybody else is like, no, all of this stuff
Speaker 6: is actually accountable. Meanwhile, literally, in my own work, I
Speaker 6: looked at the spectral lines, so all of the spectral
Speaker 6: lines I can hit right on the dot whatever, all
Speaker 6: of that. Looking at it with my work, I can
Speaker 6: tell you that, for example, the fact that I think
Speaker 6: it's iron is not currently being detected, while the presence
Speaker 6: of nickel is being detected, right, which typically doesn't happen,
Speaker 6: but it can happen. The thing is, even in modern science,
Speaker 6: spectral lines can be suppressed. I also state spectral lines
Speaker 6: can be suppressed. There are interactions that can cause it.
Speaker 6: Depending on what is going on to make that spectral
Speaker 6: line be emitted to be able to be detected depends
Speaker 6: on whether it will actually be shown. So just because
Speaker 6: we're not detecting iron does not mean that it's not
Speaker 6: actually there. Just because we're getting some weird kind of
Speaker 6: energy signatures on this does not mean that it is
Speaker 6: actually propelling itself through space, right, I mean it's for
Speaker 6: the most part. Yeah, it's a little strange, but it's
Speaker 6: not so far out there that realistically this dude should
Speaker 6: have made that claim. But this is part of the
Speaker 6: double edged sword where we have people that don't want
Speaker 6: to claim valid things, and we have people that are
Speaker 6: claiming wild things like this. It goes both ways, absolutely, man, YEA, honestly,
Speaker 6: that's what I'm hoping. So because of how this work
Speaker 6: can translate to the macro there are a lot of
Speaker 6: so like I've done the complete field formalism for basically
Speaker 6: everything out there, accounting for, you know, how these vacuum
Speaker 6: fluctuations work, what they actually are, what kind of interactions
Speaker 6: they'll have. Also, if for example, Schrodinger's shells, his harmonic
Speaker 6: shells are correct, they will actually be created at a
Speaker 6: macro planetary scale. This absolutely can create what we view
Speaker 6: as gravitational lensing. There are a lot of interactions out
Speaker 6: there that accounting for just your standard things I can hit.
Speaker 6: But I can also say that there are other ones
Speaker 6: that can cause what we're seeing, disease shifts, that we're seeing,
Speaker 6: the red shift, all of that that we're currently not
Speaker 6: actually accounting for. So I can honestly say that there's
Speaker 6: a very good chance that a lot of the distances
Speaker 6: that we think things are at could be actually shorter.
Speaker 6: To what degree, I don't know until I get that
Speaker 6: actual data to check for basically how all of these
Speaker 6: variables are accounted for and what could be you know,
Speaker 6: for the most part, being canceled out for noise or
Speaker 6: what they would consider noise. I hope to get that
Speaker 6: data at some point because I'm very interested to see
Speaker 6: how it goes. But with this theory, it opens the
Speaker 6: door to exploration. You know, we're for the most part
Speaker 6: past generations. Just when exploring no matter where it was,
Speaker 6: no matter if it was a jungle in the middle
Speaker 6: of whatever country or if it was a lab in
Speaker 6: whatever country, we explored everyone where. It got to the
Speaker 6: point to where we felt like everything was explained. And
Speaker 6: I can tell you now that there is still mystery
Speaker 6: without there, without a shadow of a doubt. And if anything,
Speaker 6: I hope this theory further proves that we don't know
Speaker 6: even remotely close to everything.
Speaker 3: I would agree, Yeah, dude, as a great philosopher one said,
Speaker 3: you don't know what you don't know.
Speaker 4: You know what I mean, and you may not know
Speaker 4: what you know.
Speaker 3: There's that Ye, we don't know shit about fuck is
Speaker 3: really the conclusion of everything here. That being said, Luke,
Speaker 3: could you let our good cult members know where they
Speaker 3: can find you if they don't know already.
Speaker 6: Yeah, so you can hit me up at my email
Speaker 6: at the Capital D, Capital E, Capital T. Then the
Speaker 6: rest is lowercase theory at proton dot me.
Speaker 3: Awesome and Rose. If any of the good Cult members
Speaker 3: out there want to be able to reach out to you.
Speaker 5: You can always reach me using the contact form at
Speaker 5: Crow Triple seven Radio dot com c r R OW
Speaker 5: seven seven seven Radio dot com.
Speaker 3: Awesome, thank you guys to help.
Speaker 5: I love answering questions.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you guys so much for coming and hanging
Speaker 3: out with us tonight. It was a fascinating conversation and
Speaker 3: uh yeah, dude, well we're definitely gonna do it again.
Speaker 3: I mean, Luke, was this the fifth or sixth or
Speaker 3: fourth or something seventh time that we've had on I
Speaker 3: don't even know. Days don't even count anymore. But that
Speaker 3: being said, Jacob, if the good Cult members out there
Speaker 3: that are listening to the show want to support us
Speaker 3: in other ways outside of Patreon, how can they do that?
Speaker 4: Sir?
Speaker 7: If you would like to get your start in the
Speaker 7: buying and selling and trading of gold and silver bullion,
Speaker 7: support the show and support your own financial future and freedom,
Speaker 7: then go to the link in the description below to
Speaker 7: Cecsilver dot com. When you fill out your information, home
Speaker 7: Boy Wayne Clark will be the one to reach out
Speaker 7: to you and get you started. You want to buy
Speaker 7: a little bit, you want to buy a lot of it. Listen,
Speaker 7: talk to your financial advisor, talk to your CPA, your
Speaker 7: account and whoever the person is for you, and ask
Speaker 7: them what they think about investing.
Speaker 2: In precious metals.
Speaker 7: I promise you they're gonna tell you at least a
Speaker 7: portion of your retirement portfolio needs to be invested in
Speaker 7: silver and gold. Silver today broke forty one dollars an ounce,
Speaker 7: last two weeks ago is thirty five dollars an ounce. Listen,
Speaker 7: it is going up, and there's gonna be fluctuations, but
Speaker 7: over the course of the next ten twenty thirty years,
Speaker 7: it is going to continuously go up.
Speaker 2: Gold's gonna do the same thing. While it is still affordable.
Speaker 7: Now is the time to buy and get the The
Speaker 7: best place to get your start would be to go
Speaker 7: to Cocsilver dot com. Again link is in the description below,
Speaker 7: But another way that you can support the show would
Speaker 7: be too please at this time, hit the five stars,
Speaker 7: hit the shares of licensed cries, comments, label post re
Speaker 7: review and shares with their.
Speaker 2: Fits and family shares that we're here's the deal. The
Speaker 2: more activity the algorithm.
Speaker 7: Seas across all of our listening platforms, the more we
Speaker 7: get promoted more potential listeners.
Speaker 2: Who could that become potential cult members? Like there, resting
Speaker 2: ladies and gentlemen, why are you ready? Go check out
Speaker 2: Menemistics Jonathan's other show.
Speaker 7: And give the same leber respect over there with the
Speaker 7: five serviews and the positivity in the comments.
Speaker 2: Come to another K.
Speaker 7: Tonight and come join each of us for individual patrons
Speaker 7: that we host every Wednesday night at nine pm Central.
Speaker 2: Links to those are in the description as well, and
Speaker 2: we thank you. Everybody's already gone and.
Speaker 3: Doune so And with that being said, this was another
Speaker 3: beautiful episode of the Cult of Conspiracy. And my name's Jonathan,
Speaker 3: I'm Jack And there's one very important.
Speaker 1: Sure in the final piece of information we needed to
Speaker 1: learn just as soon as humanly possible.
Speaker 7: A Hey, cult members, Jacob here just want to ask
Speaker 7: who wants better sex? The best way to get started
Speaker 7: is to go to Adam and Eve dot com. Right now,
Speaker 7: Adam Eve is offering fifty percent off just about any item.
Speaker 2: But that's not all. When you get one item.
Speaker 7: They will also send three bonus sexy items and six
Speaker 7: free movies. They offered a screet shipping as your privacy
Speaker 7: is a priority. Plus free shipping on your entire order.
Speaker 7: Doesn't matter how much you spend or what you buy.
Speaker 7: All we packaged and sent discreetly for free. That's fifty
Speaker 7: percent off one item and ten free gifts to boot
Speaker 7: bring more pleasure and satisfaction into your bedroom. Just go
Speaker 7: to Adam and Eve dot com and select any one item.
Speaker 7: It could be an adventurous new toy or anything you desire.
Speaker 7: Just enter the offer code CULT at checkout and you'll
Speaker 7: get fifty percent off almost any item, plus ten free gifts,
Speaker 7: three bonus items, six free movies, and free shipping.
Speaker 2: Use the offer code CULT that's c U l T
Speaker 2: at Adam and Eve dot com.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 7: This is an exclusive offer specific to this podcast, so
Speaker 7: be sure to use this code to get you not
Speaker 7: just the discount and the free goodies, but also the
Speaker 7: one hundred percent free shipping with the code CULT